this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
2349 points (97.5% liked)
Work Reform
9969 readers
11 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.
It's like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.
Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person. As craftsmen, they could have improved the lives of tens of thousands in their community instead. As engineers, they could have built products serving millions.
Not to mention the natural resources used for one person's benefit.
There's nothing positive about super yachts (and mansions, private jets,...) being built. Don't let the flow of money confuse you.
the problem is actually how the rich keep buying the houses and making the prices increase for inorganic reason making people who really needs house cant afford it while at the same time the rich keep the house they bought empty
To be clear my comment was intended purely as satire. I definitely don't view the construction of yachts as positive in any way.
And then they take the money they earn and they buy shit, directly helping other people
Nah, directly helping other ppl would be the person who bought the yacht instead spends their money on things that enrich their community/society/their workers.
Like paying yacht staff?
No, like building public third spaces (that aren't built around consumerism), building free housing, paying off people's houses, paying for medical facilities, improvements to schools, public transit (or something like free mechanic services), paying off medical debt, taking care of homeless, etc.
Billionaires are the ones with the power to change the status quo and fix so many issues with society.
Look at what can be accomplished with just a portion of a single billionaires wealth in a single area (Mark Cuban with CostPlus). Billionaires have an ethical obligation to use their wealth for the food of humankind.
This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.
Smith concluded that no, it isn't a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.
However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I'm not sure how he'd view this case.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/4/4a/Zorg.jpg
The argument is sloppy.
The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.
If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.
The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.
My comment was satire. Stop arguing with the wind.
Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.
Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.
I said "shooting holes in a water tower to make trickle-down economics work" as a reply to someone making an obvious quip. IDK if you've just never been around leftist discussions, but joking about how fucked trickle-down economics is isn't an endorsement of building megayachts that wreck the environment and provide no good to society.
Stop being intentionally obtuse, or just don't blame others for your inability to read between the lines.
EDIT to add: I also explicitly stated it was satire in response to the only other comment that replied to mine taking it seriously. But even their comment just seemed more like a clarification for anyone else reading, not someone actually taking my comment seriously.
The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.
So then why reply to my comment with a hostile argument when there was already a thread in reply to mine which cleared up any possible confusion?
You can't read satire, got confused and replied without spending the time to even read the other reply saying the same shit you said.
And you wanna blame satire for creating confusion.
If u smell shit everywhere you go, check ur own shoe bud.
You are applying overly broad extrapolations, distorting the sense of my comments, and also imposing an inaccurate view that I expressed hostility.
So leading with "the argument is sloppy" is a nice friendly way of opening a conversation?
Please tell me exactly what I'm broadly extrapolating or distorting here, because your comment makes broad accusations without actually talking specifics, while mine does exactly the opposite. If anything, ur the one extrapolating bs.
You're the one that chose to make a useless comment in the first place, don't bitch when you get called out for it.
You just literally don't know how to accept/respond to satire, and when you realized you took satire seriously, instead of saying "oh okay" u got defensive and offended.
Grow tf up dude. Let satire exist. Read other replies before adding to meaningless drivel like you did.
I am rejecting your characterization that I have been hostile, which is also not supported by the text you quoted.
Your tone consistently has escalated toward one that is petty and oppositional.
Starting a reply with "the argument is sloppy" is unfriendly, yes. Deny it all you want.
Your first comment was 100% unnecessary if you'd spent 30 seconds to read further into the thread instead of taking those 30 seconds to tell me I'm wrong.
That's antagonistic.
Now go look up the definition of hostile.
Yeah bc ur comments from the first one have been utterly pointless, added nothing to the discussion, and shown that you have an inability to just admit when you're wrong.
The other person who took my comment seriously just up voted my reply saying my comment was satire and left it at that. U just got something up ur ass and can't handle ppl correcting u.
Bye lil bro, have fun arguing with the ether. Hope you can grow tf up someday.