1252
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fal@yiffit.net 113 points 11 months ago

You're not using your bed right now. Are you letting a homeless person sleep in it?

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago

That's not a contradiction. Your, my, and everyone's bed is for sleeping in. The beds in that store are for accumulation of wealth. This displays the harsh efficiencies of capitalism, because the people in the most need for a bed cannot afford to have one.

[-] bioemerl@kbin.social 19 points 11 months ago

The beds in that store are for accumulation of wealth

...selling people beds so they have beds to sleep in. Beds that aren't riddled with bugs thanks to the store not being a homeless shelter.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

You're assuming selling beds is the only method to distribute them. That's simply untrue.

[-] bioemerl@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago

Best method we have found so far. If you want cookie cutter efficient ass state made beds you can move off to the.... Well, every state who has tried has collapsed so you're shit out of luck.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

You mean like the still-existing and highly complex gift economies of natives all across the globe that have no homelessness?

[-] bioemerl@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago
[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago
  • the indigenous economies that I identify with and would be interested in participating in were destroyed by the British 1000 years before I was born.
  • I'd rather not be a colonizer in an indigenous economy.
[-] bioemerl@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

destroyed by the British 1000 years before I was born

You acted like they still existed. In that case my original point still applies.

Those gift economies don't work at scale and you would probably have a significantly worse quality of life if you were born to one.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

There are still indigenous economies in the world. The ones that I identify with were destroyed by the British though.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

You mean people who sleep on mats on a dirt floor? Sure. Some of us want to lessen our back pain. You do you.

[-] oo1@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

and most children in most places

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Come on now, indigenous people exist in the 21st century and have modern amenities. They just also keep their indigenous economies.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

And they get those modern amenities how?

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

How does that matter in the context of fairly distributing goods in a modernized indigenous economy?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Again- a limited labor pool means a limited number of the drug that can be developed. That means that only a limited amount can be distributed, which might not be enough to provide it for everyone who needs it.

Why are you making me repeat myself?

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

It's obvious that we see labor differently. I don't consider labor to be a commodity, and therefore I don't think any of the concerns you raised about labor shortages are something worth worrying about.

[-] bioemerl@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

You can't "I don't see labor as a commodity" your way out of scarcity. That's just hilariously absurd.

Literally head in the sand sort of thinking.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Actually, I can. Because I did. On a fundamental level, we disagree about what labor is. Labor is not a commodity. It's treated like a commodity within capitalism, but it's plain and simply not a commodity.

[-] bioemerl@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Let's imagine I had 100 rocks. For some reason I have to move them in order to feed everyone.

If I have one person I can move one rock a day.

With two people I can move two rocks.

And so on and so forth.

There is a labor demand - the need to move rocks.

And a labor supply - the number of people you have available to move rocks.

You can't mind game your way out of that. Call it a commodity or not, you still need X people to do Y tasks and the discrepancy between the tasks and the people you have to do them is a measure and very real thing.

Because I did

Arrogance that knows no bounds.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Despite the attempt to simplify labor to the point of fiction, I can roll with this example to explain why I see labor vastly different from you. I have a lot of questions about this set up. How crucial is it to move these rocks? What's the deadline? How many rocks need to be moved? Are there safety procedures in check, and will safety equipment be provided?

You as an employer want to move as many rocks as possible as fast as possible with as few people as possible. The people comprising your labor force want to move the correct number of rocks on a reasonable timescale with adequate resources and be recognized as valuable individuals. If your needs from the foundational questions are out of line with the worker's needs, then you are not guaranteed that labor, and you don't deserve that labor. The factors that determine if the labor is essential are the workers and society, not the employer. If the workers or society don't deem the labor to be as essential or as worthwhile as you think, then you face delays or other factors. In a cooperative or otherwise non-market economy on a larger scale, this would appear as degrowth, which is normal and ok. Not everything is essential, and even in periods of degrowth there's still plenty of labor that can be done. All labor is specialized as well, which is an additional problem I had with the initial objections. People are flexible and want to provide meaningful labor. If there's a period of degrowth and the task of moving rocks becomes a completely unnecessary for the current economic needs, the people providing labor will seek out new meaningful labor. The needs of labor always change, but labor itself is a fundamental and unchanging aspect built into our natural instincts for survival.

[-] bioemerl@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago

How crucial is it to move these rocks? What’s the deadline? How many rocks need to be moved? Are there safety procedures in check, and will safety equipment be provided?

Yes. Let's introduce OSHA standards into a theoretical example where moving rocks feeds people.

All the while spinning a billion bullshit nonsense side points.

Labor has a supply.

Labor has a demand.

To dismiss that is to dismiss reality. Yes. The nature of labor can change and some sorts of work can be abandoned when there is a shortage. No. That doesn't invalidate scarcity and your "degrowth is good and okay" seems tor to just be a hilarious and twisted rationalization of how when your ideals cause the economy (and more importantly the general will being of people in the nation) to collapse that it's actually a good thing.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Congrats, you managed to completely misunderstand the reasons why I view labor differently from you.

load more comments (83 replies)
load more comments (91 replies)
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
1252 points (87.8% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9748 readers
46 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS