|
Grouchio posted:Worse than the Great Depression you suppose? My guess is probably not. ...probably. Who the gently caress knows how badly Trump and Pals could mess things up.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:This mother fucker has straight up sued the EPA to allow more mercury, arsenic and sulfur in the air. By burning it down.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:
That already happened. 2008 saw a lot of people seeing their 401k or retirement funds evaporating into the ether. It's one of the reasons the young are facing high unemployment and dismal progression prospects even if they do have jobs. The old aren't leaving because they literally can't afford to. Now that it's perfectly legal to just evaporate the pension funds that did exist it's even worse. Of course they all blame Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
cheese posted:He's not the major player but he has certainly done his part to keep the system lovely. When given a real opportunity to push for change, he kept the knee bent. There was also 8 years of deliberate obstructionism to content with and the fact that he inherited a burning, sinking ship from Bush.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:New Year's Resolution: figure out how to make money off our hosed up system. Get rid of all your morals.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:One of the greatest problems with American medical care is not lack of insurance -- though that is certainly a huge problem, which Obamacare's crapified insurance plans often fail to rectify -- it's massively inflated costs. And Obamacare has failed to deal with that problem. This is one reason why we see people going bankrupt due to medical costs even in cases where they have insurance. Hell, the American government doesn't even allow itself to negotiate drug prices for medicare -- it's literally prohibited by law. If those kinds of bizzare regulations aren't a big flashign red light to you saying the system is fundamentally broken then I really don't know what to tell you. That's America in general, though; rampant administrative costs in just kind of everything. Nepotism and bonuses for high ranking people making good short term numbers. It's a time-honored American tradition to corrupt the system to its very core and get your pals cushy jobs telling other people they need to make these numbers better or else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I live in a country with universal healthcare but at the moment something I'm doing for work involves researching available insurance plans for small businesses / individuals and it's loving nightmarish. Health insurance is not the kind of thing that lends itself to market mechanisms, from what I've been told I gather research on how people pick between options in situations like this shows that even savvy and well educated professional types usually tend to choose plans based on arbitrary features like which option is listed first. This just isn't an area where market mechanisms operate well and trying to force a market solution merely worsens outcomes. Frequently the plans are utterly misleading as well. At work we had an HR guy come around and show us the math on the plans. Turns out the most expensive one loving sucked and the cheapest one with the highest out of pocket maximum was actually the best deal, especially if something catastrophic happened to you. The difference wasn't small, either; the "best" one was like $150 a month. The cheapest is $13.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Lol, strong economic growth BBUT BUT BBBBBB UTUTUTUT BUT BUT BBBB B B B BB BUUUUUUUUT ALMOST 20,000 POINTS!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Is this a general rule? Should I always go with the lower-cost one? No. Sit down and do the math. It can vary a ton, which is why health care in the U.S. is a tremendous pain. Also consider your own needs. Do you need to see a doctor a lot or do you only really need catastrophic coverage in case something terrible happens to you? Does it come with dental? What does the dental cover? How about short or long term disability? It just happened that at my job the better option was the cheapo one. Sometimes there actually end up not being any differences.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Money is an illusion. All of it. It only has value because we, as a society, agree that it does.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Xae posted:It isn't just "administrative overhead". Look up OECD figures for things like MRI per capita or procedures per capita. Right now the USA performs almost twice as many MRIs per person as the UK (55/107). The US performs dramatically more procedures per person than places like the UK. Simply changing the payer system does nothing to address that. When I hosed up my knee the first time the bone doctor I went to was a super friendly guy with a pretty thick Southern accent. When he heard that my primary care doctor ordered an MRI for it he pretty bluntly said "if you were ever wondering why medicine is so drat expensive in America that's why. $5,000 for an MRI or $50 for an X-ray. 95% of the time I can tell you what's wrong with either of them. Which would you rather pay for?" I later came to find out that the doctor I was seeing at the time just did MRIs for basically everything that was wrong with you. I quit seeing that doctor. MRIs are good and cool for diagnosing certain things but they don't need to be done every single time you go to the doctor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Higsian posted:You do start off very poor though with massive debt and mediocre income. Which is pretty bad because it's a big part of why doctors are able to justify their massive salaries later. Or the massive later salaries are justification for the otherwise crippling debt. Either way it's a messed up way to have the profession work. The thing nobody talks about is the pile of people who go >$100,000 of debt and then fail to become a doctor. There are also people who would make fine doctors that don't even try because the debt is just too terrifying. Entering medical school is a huge rich if you aren't at least upper middle class by birth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Not really, you're just making it a progressive tax vs a regressive one. The general population pays for health care no matter what system you use, it's just a question of who pays the most. In a private system, it's the poor. Which is the right option because personal responsibility, Jesus, 'murica.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
People very frequently fail to understand the concept of money's velocity. $1 isn't just $1. If I give somebody $1 for something that money doesn't just vanish into the ether. That person will then spend that on something else. Most of us just don't have millions or billions sitting in the bank doing nothing. Most of us spend the majority of what we earn. That's why taxes ultimately have velocity. The government pays somebody $40,000 to do something and they probably spend at least $30,000 of that, which goes to paying somebody else to do something. Some things the government spends money on aren't profitable by nature but that doesn't mean they're useless. You throw money in a library to have a library not to get more money out of it. Same with schools. Education is a useful thing that doesn't generate profit. It generates skilled people who are good at things. Money paid to the people who staff the library or school has velocity because they go and spend that. It doesn't just vanish but far too many people seem to think that if you tax money the government just gives it to somebody to eat and it vanishes forever. You pay people to build roads because roads are useful and nice to have. Those people then spend that money on other stuff. Government does, in fact, create jobs and taxing the very wealthy increases the velocity of money because of their tendency to just sit on large piles of cash. Nobody knows for sure how much horded money there is in the world but it's in the trillions. Not just a few trillions, either. It can possibly be as high as dozens of trillions just being sat on. That's economically disastrous because that money isn't doing anything other than being a score for some rich guy who has a yacht to keep his yachts on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That surprises me. I would expect it to be spent on equities, bonds, and other instruments. Are they holding cash as a hedge against the crisis we're discussing here? It's actually pretty complex but a lot of it is just having a high score as well as the power that having a gently caress load of money gives. Raw, spendable wealth is also easier to buy influence with than money tied up in stuff like that. Cash spends. Stocks and bonds don't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Hell I have dental insurance but have still been avoiding going to the dentist. I know I'm going to need to have a ton of work done and my jaw hurts on the regular (I still have my wisdom teeth and they probably are loving up). It's going to cost. I individually make more than the median household income in America and still cringe at the cost of getting major dental work done.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:What do you tell someone who is insistent that the Community Reinvestment Act helped lead to the 2008 financial crash? Nothing. You laugh at them and tell them they're so stupid you're shocked they understand how socks work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Pretty much yes. It had nothing to do with somebody forcing banks to loan money to dirty poors. It was actually deeper than that; banks were giving loans to people they knew absolutely could not pay it back. We're talking home loans, no questions asked, to NINA (no income, no assets) people. Not only were they wrapping the stuff up in packages with better rated stuff they were also buying insurance against the loans they knew were going to fail. It was straight up the financial sector creating a situation where no matter what happened to the debt they made money so they created as much of it as they possibly could. It was fraud on an absolutely massive scale. If it had anything to do with laws it had to do with a lack of them that happened due to deregulation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Higsian posted:There's no way a society where everyone had exactly equal income would still include rent guys come on. Same for mortgages or any other kind of debt. You'd probably be given your home by the community or government or something like that. Ehhh, that's not entirely true. If everybody got a certain GMI then you'd have people being more willing to live in places with dismal economic prospects because, gently caress it, don't need a job. Or, if you have one, you don't care much if it only pays $5,000 a year. One of the biggest drivers of rent right now is a massive shortage of housing in the places people actually want to live. As in, where the jobs are. People are flocking to certain parts of America purely by necessity and it's loving up prices. In some areas of America you can buy a big house for less than a year's rent in San Francisco. The reason is because nobody wants to live in those places out of sheer necessity. If everybody gets a GMI then you'll have people living there anyway because gently caress it, who cares, it's cheap and space is plentiful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:*edit* isn't also the main reason tech workers aren't having kids because of how ridiculously expensive it is and lack of basic services like paternity pay and affordable childcare? I see those things as very connected, ie if they got more services like we do in Iceland, they'd be having more kids. It's part of it. A mix of obscene rent in tech town, massive crushing student debt, and the cost of having a babby in the first place puts a crunch on it. It's crowded as hell where tech jobs exist too. No sense trying to raise a family in a closet you're renting for $2,000 a month. American culture also doesn't value family much these days. We care about personal net worth and...well, not much else. You have to work 500 hours a week and make as much money as possible or you're a loser.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Aren't nearly everything in that list, things that nations with better safety nets (funded by taxes not being wasted on war) cover or ameliorate? Yup but that is communism and we don't do that here you dirty disgusting red. Stay in Europe. ... Actually that would probably be better for you anyway. It's downright bizarre that the same people screeching that young Americans aren't buying houses and forming babbies are the same ones setting things up so they can't. Wages have stagnated while cost of living has gone up anywhere you'd actually want to live. Tax cuts or bailouts for the rich are basically mandatory every administration. All that matters is net worth so whatever makes a billionaire another billion is cool and good because he deserves it. If he didn't he'd never have become a billionaire in the first place!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:So now that Trump has revealed himself to be a true blue protectionist why is the stock market still going up? He will likely manage to lower taxes and vomit piles of money into the private sector. The hiring freeze will also make government services suck so private sector jobs will probably come up. The government can't create more federal employees but notice that there doesn't seem to be a restriction on just paying a company to do stuff. The short term gains are probably going to be good but expect a looooot of bubbles. The tech sector is already starting to pop I think.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Charles Mansion posted:I'm curious to hear why you think this is the case. Even though tech is growing the amount of money being thrown at it is absolutely absurd. People are piling massive amounts of cash on basically any startup hoping that they'll get on the ground floor of the next Google or Microsoft. Tech will do fine but tech investment is bubbling. Everybody needs technology these days so it won't be a disaster like a massive housing bubble but the financial sector is inflating everything it can get its blood funnel in right now in a desperate attempt to have exponential growth forever. They're failing and tech is pretty much the only thing that potentially has insane returns. Instead we get things like Theranos and Uber.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Welp, as long as I can still hold a job as a programmer... You'll be fine until computers can program themselves. There's a massive shortage of programmers worldwide and even if the tech sector has an exploding bubble...well fact is every company will still need a website, the data will still need scienced, and somebody will still have to code the next Call of Halostrike Warfare 37: Now Even More Modern. When computers can program themselves either we're all hosed or we get a Star Trek utopia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Rime posted:You seen the number of no-nothing code-illiterate imbeciles being pumped out by "bootcamps"? Specialized programming ain't dying, but the industry has taken the attitude that if it can't import slaves from India to drive down wages - it'll just manufacture an artificial glut of developers itself to achieve the same. The main thing that's doing is making it harder to find a programming job if you're a newbie with no experience. Actual universities are making their CS degrees easier to crank out more people with CS degrees. Code illiterate people who went to a lovely boot camp aren't developers; they're people who got scammed. That isn't a problem of the industry but a problem of America being lovely. People know that being a programmer is a pretty sweet gig so they'll do anything to get a programming job. Boot camps know that so they're cropping up everywhere to collect money and make promises. Once you're proven it's balls easy to find new jobs. If you're experienced and good then recruiters won't leave you the gently caress alone. Boot camp graduates are not competing with that pool of talent and sane tech companies know that. There are a bajillion stories of companies deciding to do their tech stuff more cheaply by hiring the cheapest programmers they can find only to end up paying more in the long run. Idiots are still doing that but other companies are realizing just how valuable good tech talent is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
cheese posted:It's going to be hilarious when Mexico takes down Trump. My MAGA hat wearing Republican uncle, one of those mythical "small business owners", is probably making GBS threads himself now since he does a lot of business that involves both Mexico and Mexican immigrant labor. He spent all election saying the wall thing was just a stunt and that Trump wouldn't really destroy American business by doing something so stupid as messing with important border trade. That's the thing that truly, genuinely baffles me about Trump voters. It's like..you voted him in. Based on what he said. Now he's being exactly what he promised. And they're...surprised? Like really guys, you made your bed now you get to lie in it. The other side of it is that when you're on good terms with the neighbors you don't actively do things to piss them off. Mexico and the U.S. have been on pretty good terms for quite a long time. Why throw that away? I know the obvious answer is "racism" and that's basically why so many Trump voters are cheering it but really...all they harp on is the illegals but there are a poo poo load of Mexicans legally here that would actually quite like you to not gently caress up the less legally here Mexicans as well as, you know, Mexico itself. I think that's one thing that people forget and why this whole gently caress SANCTUARY CITIES!!! thing is stupid. This hate piled on Mexicans is going to lose any good will Mexican communities in America have toward the nation and the government. That isn't good. There are over 11,000,000 legal U.S. citizens that are Mexican. We should probably endeavor to stay on good terms with them. Given that the GOP has also been actively trying to court the Hispanic vote they're probably not happy with Trump loving it up for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Eh I know gay guys who voted for Trump who insisted he would never ever appoint an anti-gay supreme court justice because he hires gay people and has gay friends. All those times Trump said he'd do exactly that? Just lies to pander to Republicans, but in office he'll betray them and not me. Yup. I think a lot of it is that they're starting to realize the dreadful things their party stands for and are trying to justify electing people that act like cartoon villains. A hell of a lot of Republicans are squirming right now because what they've been voting for is now nakedly out in the open and, well poo poo, it turns out that we actually were electing a bunch of xenophobic assholes hostile to anything that isn't a rich white guy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
cheese posted:Couldn't disagree more. Election analysis basically confirms the hypothesis that Republicans always turn out reliably and Democrats are emotional voters who can't be bothered to show up if they are not moved emotionally one way or another. Obama crushed McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, and Trump beat Hillary in 2016, not because the Republican base was fired up (hint: they were fired up for all 3) but because different amounts of Democratic leaning voters bothered to show up to the polls. Here's the thing, though; America has stated pretty strongly that we didn't want Trump. He lost the popular vote by multiple millions and entered the presidency with a record-breakingly low entry approval rating. The massive, nationwide protests that have been happening constantly ever since he won are just another indicator. There are only two ways he wins again; either he pulls his head out of his rear end and actually is a good president (lol no) or the GOP fucks up voting so badly democracy is effectively over. It's also starting to come out that he's basically just a puppet for his political pals, who are all pushing god awful things, so if they don't go full Hitler they're going to have trouble keeping power. Less insane Republicans are absolutely horrified at what is going on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:The GOP is the dog that caught the car with Obamacare, and if they do a full repeal and don't have something in place to pick up the pieces I would guess the medical industry side of things is going to start falling apart in a big hurry. Healthcare in America makes up 17% of the country's GDP and if it starts failing as a whole the rest of the country's economy is basically going with it. As well as the population as a whole because of the obvious. Probably the bigger snag is going to be education. The American education system is already a dumpster fire and the GOP loathes public funding in schools. It'll be great for the rich if the "all private, all the time" thing goes in but it's going to suck for the rest of us. That's also going to dick over America as a whole overall in the very long term. You'll have fewer college graduates, fewer people graduating high school with the numeracy required for modern jobs, and an overall lower education level. That means fewer engineers, fewer programmers, fewer doctors, fewer mathematicians, etc. Less funding for colleges means less pure science getting done which is going to cause America to lag behind especially given the right's tendency to reject any science that disagrees with their beliefs. It'll be like the Nazis getting screwed over for rejecting "Jewish science" all over again. This is also going to utterly dick over America if it gets into yet another war as well. An unhealthy population that can't see doctors and can't afford enough food doesn't generate good soldiers. Similarly a badly education population can't generate better gear than the enemy especially considering that the military industrial complex only cares about shoveling money into the pockets of people who own the contractors. Deregulation leading to shoddy, dirty products will cause worse innovation in the private sector in general and good that can't compete internationally. What I'm saying is that Trump's plan to fix America is comparable to remodeling a house with nothing but a gas can and a book of matches.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:The part I highlighted is already a huge problem. That's also partly because Americans are gluttonous and sedentary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time. She didn't want to run. She was my first choice too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:I am increasingly of the opinion that the only people who should be allowed to become POTUS are the people who want the job the least, so only the most direly important stuff gets done. That's generally true of leadership positions in general in the end. The people who most want positions of power and influence are generally those that are attracted to power for their own benefit. There are exceptions of course and some people do genuinely just want to make the world suck less but those most attracted to power are typically those that will abuse it. The non-ambitious that wouldn't abuse the power are the ones who aren't going to run for office in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:What you're implying here is that consumer debt is beneficial in an absolute sense, which isn't true. Credit as a useful tool for the middle class is entirely dependent on consistently rising wages and healthy inflation. Without those factors, you're actually reducing buying power over the long term and creating an unsustainable spending bubble. Which it has been for decades now. It's one of the fundamental problems of the modern economy; the financial sector demands exponential growth every single year with no room for loss or failure. Every time they figure out a new way to shovel the risk on to other people they just start loaning money to anybody who will borrow it. The results are disastrous for anybody that isn't rich.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's very possible houses, as in the physical structures themselves, have gotten better, but the land they're built on has gotten much more expensive. That depends on where it's built but if memory serves a lot of it is the development company's CEO demanding an outlandish salary because he decided to build some houses there. Pretty much anything that happens in America ends up requiring a large chunk of money going to some CEO's pockets because he told somebody to do something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Redistribution is only a band-aid for the real problem, which is power and social relations as they intertwine with economics and basic survival for millions. The higher you jack up taxes on the John Galts of the world, the more they'll bitch and undermine everyone else. Best they not existed in the first place. "It's perfectly OK for a billionaire to withhold what another person needs to survive without any repercussions." - You Actually forcing the rich to share more of the pie isn't redistribution. It's justice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Countries theoretically compete with other countries, though I suppose a distinction could be made about how much choice a "consumer" has in which country to operate in. That's actually one of the central reasons why tariffing things so hard that no trade can happen or shutting off all trade is a terrible idea. Different parts of the world are better at producing certain things. America for example is a tremendously lovely place to grow bananas but we love us some bananas. Sooooo we Some countries are just better at producing something than some other country so trade happens because there's something else that country is very bad at. The problem is this crowd going "AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE AT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING FOREVER!!!!" acting like we can just cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and not suffer in the process. America is pretty bad at producing certain things. It's fine! America can suck at some things. We should focus on what we're good at like ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Go Mondragon corp model, imo. You're going to see more of that in the near future, I imagine. I forget which countries it happened in but in several South American countries some broke, unemployed people commandeered abandoned factories to turn into worker's collectives. They were owned by some major, international corporations that shuttered them because they weren't as profitable as they wanted but the price to buy them was far, far more than anybody in the country could really afford. So a bunch of workers just smashed off the locks, restarted the factories, and started using them to make things. I think in several cases the local governments were basically "squatter's rights, bitches! You cut off their jobs and kept all the land for yourselves. The gently caress did you think we were going to do?" That sort of thing is going to keep happening given that there are abandoned buildings just loving everywhere but also jobless people who just want a source of damned income. If the super rich are going to just own everything and say "lol nah, you can't have it, guess you get to starve!" people are going to react that way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:FWIW, I do agree that one should do good work but that this is heavily contingent on the degree of coercion involved. Rowe is ideologically committed to never seeing any coercion in capitalism, and so the entirety of his manifesto is garbage. That's the prosperity gospel and American Christianity rearing its ugly head again. The Bible even says that you should work your hardest at whatever it is you're doing pretty much no matter what. Diligence is, after all, considered a virtue. However, that was written at a time when most people were subsistence farmers and capitalism as we know it today wasn't even thought of. It also looks at that in a vacuum and ignores all other virtues. Yes people like Rowe are absolutely right in that we should individually all work hard, be productive, and take pride in doing whatever it is we do well. However, he's also ignoring why so many low-paid workers have lost their motivation and he's also very wrong that anybody who can't make enough to survive on only has themselves to blame. He also willfully ignores how much game rigging the rich have done in the world today to make all the gains flow into their pockets. The other side of "diligence being a virtue" is that if you work hard you'll reap the rewards. In this day and age they're ignoring that second part; the expectation is that anybody who works should work as hard as they possibly can and just let other people have the rewards. It's a common reversal of the actual logic; they're just assuming that the poor are poor because they aren't diligent and industrious when really why would they bother working hard if they don't see any gain out of it? The guy stocking the shelves still makes $9 an hour if he does only enough to not get fired instead of as much as he possibly can. If he works his hardest his raise is still going to be garbage. Expending extra effort gets him no extra reward other than a higher expectation of more work. Really a lot of American businesses are seeing problems because of this kind of thing right now. Yeah it's cheaper to hire deliberately exploited people working part time for minimum wage at multiple places with no benefits but those employees are going to be miserable, unmotivated people who do bad work. This is especially true when they realize that their boss is actively looking for excuses to fire them so they don't have to be given raises, promotions, or any benefits ever. Why bother working hard for a business to make it prosper when you know the boss wants to fire you as soon as he can? Why bother putting in extra effort when you know that you'll never be given full time hours? It's truly amazing how many people think "well we told the poor to work harder! My job here is done. It's their own fault lol end welfare" is the entirety of the story. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:People's need for a "loving thing to do in this world" is as nesissary to them as food or shelter. They will do things as desperate to get it as if they didn't have food. Fascism and racism are the equivalent of boiling leather and wall paper to eat. Well that's not fair to boiling leather to eat. They're more the last ditch desperate cannabalism. Our economic systems must account for this need. It's true that people need something to do and the protestant work ethic isn't bad in and of itself. The problem is that this is used as an excuse to pay people starvation wages to generate profit for the rich. The protestant work ethic just justifies that people who are losing the fruits of their labor to somebody else for no reason other than "lol people like me own everything, what are you going to do?" should still work hard. It's a deliberate corruption of what is ultimately not a bad thing. Yeah people go crazy if they have nothing to do, no direction, and no meaning but American society has decided that you must justify your existence either by being rich or generating profit for somebody else who is. If you are neither of those then gently caress you buddy go die of exposure somewhere I can't be inconvenienced by seeing it happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Avalanche posted:The terrible thing about the "Protestant Work Ethic" is that it says nothing about the idleness of the rich; only the poor. God decides who is rich and who is poor. A person who is rich obviously must deserve it for some reason. A person who is poor obviously must deserve it for some reason. Anybody who is in charge of anything was also put there by God so we must do whatever they say. Unless they disagree with me. Then that person is the antichrist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 01:31
|
|