• BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    25·
    1 day ago

    The decline in unions and collective bargaining has been a big part of this is my opinion. The anti-union propaganda was so effective that a couple generations killed it off before the younger ones could see it in action.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      2·
      1 day ago

      Your employer doesn’t want you unemployed. They need to keep unemployment just bad enough so you would be afraid to lose your job, taking on more responsibilities for less money.

  • xia@lemmy.caEnglish
    1·
    22 hours ago

    “When goods increase, they increase [the number] who eat them…”

  • Vegafjord oakframer@lemmy.ml
    5·
    1 day ago

    Ultimately the machine wants to preserve itself and strengthen. It does this by any means. Democracies stabilize the machine in that they prevents people from becoming bothersome. All people can voice their opinions, but ultimately everybody has to be in favour of the machine in fern to be taken seriously. If the people abandon the democracy, the machine will become less stable, and have to use more coercive means to maintain itself.

    Strength is all under the machine.

  • topperharlie@lemmy.world
    121·
    2 days ago

    This is what comes to mind to me every time “the demographic problem” of aging population comes up.

    Lowering the number of humans in a natural way is a good thing and economy should evolve into supporting that, not the other way around.

    But we depend on a system that relies on constant grow instead so a bunch of people can rape kids without repercussion…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 day ago

      Lowering the number of humans in a natural way is a good thing

      I don’t think that’s strictly true, as emissions per capita have little correlation with raw population size.

      Also, when the Eugenics Axe falls, it inevitably falls on the weakest and most vulnerable. Shrinking the population will reduce the number of homeless folks, not the number of super yacht owners.

      we depend on a system that relies on constant grow

      We target growth of GDP, limits on inflation, and a low single digit unemployment rate. All of that can be achieved regardless of gross population size.

      Consequently, we’ve built an economy that focuses on gaming these three numbers without regard to life expectancy, mortality rate, education rate, per capita hours worked, or real economic value produced.

      We’re just as happy to AI generate movie hours as grow corn or build homes. We’re just as happy to bomb a hospital as build an MRI machine.

      That’s the rub in our economic calculus. If we were just trying to maximize the growth rate of - say - watts of power to each household? Or vacation days allocated to each worker? Or healthy life years? We have a large frontier in front of us to grow into.

      But we’re not doing any of that.

      • topperharlie@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 day ago

        I don’t know what you mean by eugenics axe, but I was not talking about any kind of intervention, rather the opposite, let just not panic over ageing and just try to find a way for the economy to adapt to it.

        you can say what you want, but humanity has multiplied and the planet resources are limited. So the current plan of keep multiplying doesn’t seem reasonable. For as much effort anyone does to not pollute, having kids is by far the biggest pollution source.

        Also is not like being many humans is lowering the power gap, rich people just have more people to abuse.

        To finish my point, I’m European, and unlike America, here the mid/high class are not ultra Catholic having tenths of kids, so my perspective could be a bit different than yours. There is not a clear correlation between wealth and kids, if anything inverse.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          1 day ago

          I was not talking about any kind of intervention

          No. But then you’re not the one setting these policies, just kinda observing their consequences from a limited vantage point.

          let just not panic over ageing

          This isn’t a panic over aging so much as a malaise over having kids. Exorbitant rents, depressed wages, and suffocating inflation - particularly in health care and education - make children cost prohibitive.

          Consequently, policy makers (largely past the baby making age) are resorting to increasingly draconian methods decide who gets to procreate and to what degree.

          “White Replacement Theory” dominating public political discussions can only end in widespread social murder.

          humanity has multiplied and the planet resources are limited

          The resources aren’t being used equitably. Ergo, “humanity” isn’t to blame in the aggregate.

          I’m European, and unlike America, here the mid/high class are not ultra Catholic having tenths of kids

          Bro, I’m an American Catholic with exactly one sibling.

          Deranged beliefs like this are exactly what end in genocide.

          • topperharlie@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 day ago

            dude you’re tripping. And again, in American context might make sense, but I’m telling you, American social reality is not the only one. And American society, you Catholic specially, are the most preachy and “get involved in people’s life” of them all. In most European countries we don’t give a fuck about what our neighbours are doing, unlike you guys that keep exporting your morals to anyone around you and their dog, so don’t you give me lessons about interventionism.

            But let’s be real, talking with Americans, specially Catholic, is useless… you guys chose trump… TWICE!

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 day ago

              talking with Americans, specially Catholic, is useless

              Well, there it is folks.

              Anyone want to guess this guy’s opinion on Muslims?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          I was not talking about any kind of intervention

          No. But then you’re not the one setting these policies, just kinda observing their consequences from a limited vantage point.

          let just not panic over ageing

          This isn’t a panic over aging so much as a malaise over having kids. Exorbitant rents, depressed wages, and suffocating inflation - particularly in health care and education - make children cost prohibitive.

          Consequently, policy makers (largely past the baby making age) are resorting to increasingly draconian methods decide who gets to procreate and to what degree.

          “White Replacement Theory” dominating public political discussions can only end in widespread social murder.

          humanity has multiplied and the planet resources are limited

          The resources aren’t being used equitably. Ergo, “humanity” isn’t to blame in the aggregate.

          I’m European, and unlike America, here the mid/high class are not ultra Catholic having tenths of kids

          Bro, I’m an American Catholic with exactly one sibling.

  • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    42·
    2 days ago

    It’s actually the opposite. The more we can automate and the more we produce with the same time and effort input, the less we earn and the more we have to work. Which has been happening for a long time, and is why anyone thinking that AI would help anyone other than billionaires is a dummy.

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    28·
    2 days ago

    In recent times, for sure. But that’s because the capitalist class have done a very good job of making people afraid to rock the boat like their ancestors did…

    After all when you’re one bad paycheck from starvation, or you’re working two jobs just to make ends meet, your first priority is surviving.

    And for those who aren’t, there’s a practically militarised police force to keep you down should you ever step out of line.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    12·
    2 days ago

    Here’s a weird trick I’ve learned: I just care a lot less than I used to and only do the bare minimum a lot of the time. If you’re good at what you do, you can slack off quite a bit without drawing any attention to yourself most of the time. Obv only applicable in certain job roles / conditions, so I plan to stay at this job forever.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      2·
      1 day ago

      Slacking off doesn’t cut it for me anymore. I’ve been doing it for years and I still long for freedom where I’m not paid to sit on a chair all day long.

      I want to work… on things that makes sense for me or others that I care more about than the company profit.

      Paid work is preventing me from doing that. If the pay was higher I could afford to take more time off to work on my own interests.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    9·
    2 days ago

    It’s pathetic that there hasn’t been a raise in the minimum wage in like 50 years. The epstein class is completely opposed. Forget about 4 day work week. Never even mentioned. Politicians would rather serve capital than win.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    9·
    2 days ago

    Generally speaking increased worker productivity has lead to increased working hours, people today work more hours, now must be available at all hours, are being coerced into skipping legally mandated lunch breaks, into jobs with significantly worse conditions (because they can get away with it), in exchange for significantly less pay when you take into account the cost of living (yes inflation is technically stable but that doesn’t matter for the average person, cost of living does).