1585
Make it make sense (i.imgur.com)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 100 points 1 year ago

Rich people are just better, and because they're better anything they do with their money is automatically better. So they should get all the money and if you want to be a good person just get rich like them.

[-] idunnololz@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Oh so that's why I'm such a terrible person. This checks out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 96 points 1 year ago

It's actually about power and leverage, not lifestyle. Rich people don't actually spend most of their money on personal luxuries, they spend it on acquiring more wealth, which translates into more control over resources and people's lives. Regular people don't actually spend most of their money on luxuries, they spend it on maintaining their place in a world someone else owns.

The narrative that it is about what level of material status someone is living in or deserves is a distraction. It wouldn't matter at all if the rich started living more spartan lifestyles. They still have the wealth and power, that will manifest one way or another as control over other people's lives, and that's what they're really there for.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

The point is that if that money is used to pay employees properly, the wealth/power balances evaporate, and we'll have a much fairer society society where our democracy isn't undermined by monied interests.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

if [yacht money] is used to pay employees properly, the wealth/power balances evaporate

Several issues with this. As other comments have pointed out, the specific money in question here isn't actually very significant. But say you expand what's considered to all company profits. A company won't voluntarily pay more for a service of a given quality than they have to, because its existence depends on being better at profit seeking than other companies. If they do have to (maybe because of a regulation) pay more than the market rate, the priority is going to be reorganizing the business to employ fewer people, overwork the people who are still employed, or otherwise arrange themselves so that as much of the profits as possible are still going to the owners. The power dynamic between employer and employee remains the same, because their relative negotiating power is largely unchanged, and so would be the balance of wealth.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

the specific money in question here isn't actually very significant.

It's all the revenue leeched away from workers to shareholders - that's the majority of the entire global economy. What are you talking about?

A company won't voluntarily pay more for a service of a given quality than they have to, because its existence depends on being better at profit seeking than other companies.

I'm not proposing we make it voluntary.

If they do have to (maybe because of a regulation) pay more than the market rate, the priority is going to be reorganizing the business to employ fewer people, overwork the people who are still employed, or otherwise arrange themselves so that as much of the profits as possible are still going to the owners.

Companies aren't welfare schemes - they run as lean as possible today. I'm proposing the workers be the owners.

The power dynamic between employer and employee remains the same, because their relative negotiating power is largely unchanged, and so would be the balance of wealth.

Workers own the company, workers get paid fairly, workers decide how the company is run. Shareholders no longer exist, and must live off the welfare state or get a real goddamn job.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m proposing the workers be the owners.

What I like about this solution is that it does to some extent directly address the problem of negotiating power. I am skeptical about the practicality and sustainability though. For example there was a worker owned brewery I was aware of, which had an employment scheme in which accumulated time in the company translated into shares of ownership. The brewery became successful, and the now somewhat wealthy workers preferred to keep their wealth rather than continuing to distribute it to new employees, and so they voted to sell and accept a payout. I'm not sure this is an easily solved issue; it seems that any financial endeavor will have winners and losers, and the winners will do what they can to retain their position.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sektor@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Many other distractions, like skin color, religion, sex orientation. Poor have one advantage and that is the numbers, at least in democracies. So you need to gerrymander them in any way you can think about.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

The difference is that when you say “I can’t pay my employees more” most employees begrudgingly accept the pay they get anyway. But when someone says “I can’t pay my rent”, the landlord evicts them.

If not paying your employees more actually resulted in having no employees, they would be equivalent. The only practical way to make that happen is unionization.

[-] Angry_Maple@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

It's bizarre seeing that disconnect in real life.

At my last job, the wages were stagnant for years. The company held meetings to boast that they were making record profits, the highest increase yet. The following month, they refused to raise wages because it would be too expensive.

Somehow, they were shocked when practically everyone who was skilled left. They couldn't get new people in the door, either.

They ended up having to raise everyone's wages. (YAY union!)

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're so close to hitting the fundamental truth here.

A landlord evicts someone who cannot pay rent because there are other people who can pay rent.

Employees leave if an employer pays too low if there are other, better-paying options available.

As there are typically, though not always, more available workers than available jobs at a given pay rate, the workers lack the employer demand necessary to set pricing wholesale.

The reason wages have been rising lately is because employers have been unable to find workers at previous salaries. There are most definitely businesses that have folded because of this - the business model for those companies did not account for higher wages, and raising prices was not possible in the interim.

That's the actual interplay between these market forces, and yes, the reason that unionization is effective (and often necessary) in raising wages. It's why collective bargaining is an essential control on labor markets

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They think they got rich by sacrificing lattes and avocado toast. Therefore... you can be rich too!

[-] DharkStare@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I still remember reading a blog by someone explaining how easy it is to become rich like them. Step 3 or 4 was "Rent out the downtown condo your mother gifted you when you got married and continue living at home working at your parents non-profit" because obviously everyone gets a free condo when they get married.

As much of a joke as it sounds, the person was completely serious.

[-] PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 year ago

Mitt Romney's wife shared this lovely story of when they were in college, they didn't ask anything from their parents. They'd come visit and got them a nice dinner, that was it. Ann Romney had to order carpet samples and sew them together so they didn't have to walk on bare floors. Sometimes, they were so stripped of cash that they had to sell stock to get money. They had to sell stock. SELL. STOCK.

She probably thought it was an uplifting story.

[-] solstice@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I vividly remember that and it really was as out of touch as it sounds. Mitt released a bunch of tax returns at least, voluntarily unlike someone else, and they confirm his extraordinary wealth. Out of touch doesn't begin to describe some of these people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] undeffeined@lemmy.ml 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's Murphys golden rule: whoever has the gold makes the rules

[-] Rand0mA@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Because they can afford to pay the propaganda bots to mass post shite all over the internet

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Shareholders are leeches on society. Every dollar they earn was snatched from the workers that earned that dollar. We should focus on incentivising people that work for a living - not the lazy cunts that just own shit.

[-] ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

And unfortunately businesses have abdicated their responsibility for their workers retirements to the market. Many of us are now shareholders by way of our 401Ks.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

They steal our retirement, I think it's fair we steal their companies and resources.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 year ago

They can afford to give the employees a bigger wage, they just don't want to because the employees are willing to work for the current wage.

[-] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

That and even small raises over a large group add up significantly. It's literally cheaper for them to spend millions fighting it.

[-] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Willing takes out all the nuance. Forced to do so because of market forces, available jobs, location, skills, other responsibilities...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Seudo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Your landlord can't pay the morgage!

[-] Littleborat@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well.... you see...

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
1585 points (97.6% liked)

Antiwork

3629 readers
1 users here now

A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.

The new place for c/antiwork@lemmy.fmhy.ml

This server is no longer working, and we had to move.

Active stats from all instances

Subscribers: 2.1k

Date Created: June 21, 2023

Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library 📚
Essential Reads

Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.

c/Antiwork Rules

Tap or click to expand

1. Server Main Rules

The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/

2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments

Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.

Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.

3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved

Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.

4. Educate don’t attack

No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.

If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.

5. No Advertising

Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service

6. No factually misleading informationContent that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.

7. Headlines

If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.

8. Staff Discretion

Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.

It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.


Other Communities

c/workreform@lemmy.world


Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS