• DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    3 hours ago

    The secret to reclaiming your life is the the 8 hours that’ve been stored away and you’re that you’rw missing out on.

    snorts caffine

    • dickalan@lemmy.world
      51·
      2 hours ago

      Pot meet , kettle, what the fuck are you doing here buddy? You should be out Rioting

      • WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah we don’t tolerate this servile shit in my country. Your defensive deflection is surely the way to get the job done, though. 👍

        • dickalan@lemmy.world
          2·
          42 minutes ago

          Oh, OK so you’re just another country making fun of Americans, carry-on, you’re doing such a great job

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 hours ago

      and?

      where is the difference between earning $300 and needing $285 to stay alive, and earning $2000 and needing $1900 to stay alive?

      • A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl
        2·
        3 hours ago

        So, 300-285 =15

        2000-1900 = 100

        Δ = 85

        So 85% difference… altough I get you don’t meant that, but still, people from those places don’t realize the huge amount of stuff they get from granted, I’m a socialist anyways, but you need to be educated on where you stand on the world, I’m neither saying I’m personally dying of hunger or whatever, but the reality of the average person in a rich country, is heaps higher than whatever, is annoying for me to no end to see people complaining about having so much in reality, clean running water, sewage, a police than when you call it, it shows up, chances at an education, etc… people literally die of diharrea because unsanitary conditions, you should cherish being born in one of those countries, and still strive for the better, but do not forget how far you have come, eaning 2k/month for working 40h/week is such a sweet deal for the majority of people on earth, don’t act like it isn’t, because, in part, the only reason those countries can have so much wealth, is because for all that other people life isn’t as nice, in a way, those rich countries have outsourced crappy jobs elsewhere, and that’s not necessarily bad, those countries, my country, deserve to develop, but you at least must be aware of all of it.

        Sorry for the word salad, it just annoys me to no end how all these first worlders don’t realize how good they have it in life.

        • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
          1·
          1 hour ago

          if 2000 stretches as far in one place as 300 does in another, then 100 in the first place stretches as far as 15 does in the second. it’s 5% either way.

          and this comparison only makes sense if the jobs are equal, so while your paragraph is accurate it’s not really in scope.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    29·
    13 hours ago

    and they have the gall to suggest that if we don’t accomplish enough outside of work then it’s a matter of time management. There’s only so much time management I can do when a giant lump of my time is gone.

  • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    91·
    13 hours ago

    It would be a lot easier to swallow if we were a part of some grand endeavor of building society and stuff for the common good. But if you try yo do that, even on your own time, they will send men with guns paid with money they stole out of your paycheck (which would maybe be tolerable if they also did, like, environmental protection or work safety or food safety or social safety nets or whatever, but it’s all just men with guns taking ypur neighbors in pre-dawn raids and shooting at your friends and threatening to murder you now).

    So fuck it. Take what you’re owed; you owe these fuckers nothing.

    And if you want to make a society, remember upull have to find out whe4e these murderous thugs live, always outside your community, and vote for them. Vote for theor families. Don’t be shy about voting for bystanders if you vote for them where they live; anyone who makes a place nice for these invaders to live deserves your vote too.

  • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    33·
    13 hours ago

    In the ancestral environment we would still work all day to survive, and we wouldn’t have medicine or YouTube for it either. There could obviously be a more equitable system today, and the end goal is that humans don’t have to work any more, but it’s disingenuous to imply that the capitalist division of labour model is an alternative to not working and still getting stuff.

    • Ecco the dolphin@lemmy.ml
      8·
      12 hours ago

      Nobody is suggesting a model in which you don’t work and still get stuff…

      Labor is entitled to all it creates.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah, it used to be sunup to sundown, 6 days a week. And the seventh was hardly a day of rest. And, there was no retirement at 65. There was working until you died, or at least working until you were very feeble and hoping that your children would take care of you in your old age (which just added to the work they had to do). Work also wasn’t this thing that you had to start doing after university. It was this thing you started going before you hit puberty. You’d be feeding the animals, or helping mend the clothing as a child, and that work would continue for your entire life.

      And, even if things were distributed more equitably, work would still be necessary. In fact, if things were distributed more equitably, it wouldn’t be illegal immigrants or immigrants on short-term visas doing a lot of the agricultural work, it would be the kinds of people who complain about their 9-5 jobs.

      The sad fact is that getting enough variety on your plate, a comfortable roof over your head, and entertainment in your eyes requires a lot of work from a lot of people. It would be really nice if we lived in a post-scarcity world with replicators to provide any food anybody desired, and robots to repair everything that broke. But, we’re not there yet. Spending all day working 5 days a week feels rough, and maybe if things were more fairly distributed we’d only be working 3 days a week. But, until we invent the replicator, we’re still going to need farms, and farms will need farm workers, and farm workers will need mattresses and roofs and vehicles, and those vehicles will require tires, and those tires will need to be tested for safety, and those safety testers will need computers, and those computers will need programmers, and those programmers will need caffeine…

      • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
        1·
        10 hours ago

        Of course we have to work. We still need food, water, shelter, etc., and machines will not fulfill these needs on their own (at least not yet). However, given the recent increases in productivity and corporate wealth, do you believe it is necessary for us to work as much as we do in order to fulfill everyone’s needs?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      4·
      13 hours ago

      This depends on what ancestors your talking about. For instance, hunter and gathers rarely worked more than twenty hours a week to provide all their needs.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zipOP
      2·
      11 hours ago

      Good, we are in agreement. No one is implying that work is unnecessary. Labor has existed for as long as we have – much longer than capitalism. To equate this sentiment with the original post appears disingenuous.

      Capitalism is exploitative by necessity. The rise of machines during the industrial revolution divorced the worker from the fruits of their labor and from the tools with which to produce them. Now we, the workers, are dependent on the owners for wages to sustain the material conditions of our existence. Much like how the manorial system forced the feudal serf to cultivate the land, today’s workers are institutionally coerced: we sell ourselves by the year or by the hour. Meanwhile, the owners reap the vast profits watered by the sweat of labor while seeking to reduce the price of labor down to whatever minuscule sum allows us to continue working. There is, indeed, a more equitable system available.

    • Daemon Silverstein@calckey.world
      01·
      7 hours ago

      @[email protected] @[email protected]

      There’s a difference between working in a primitive environment (hunter-gather, especially before hominid started to establish settlements) and what we call as “working” nowadays.

      The former didn’t involve exploiting others. The latter does.

      The former did involve direct involvement to one’s own survival, just like any lifeform still does out there. The “work” involved no one’s “means of production” because they could get their sustenance from Mother Nature. Even when hominids started to settle in tribes, their work yielded the direct thing that would sustain them: food and water and shelters, as the tribe cared about the tribe.

      Meanwhile, “working” in modernity involves solving other’s “problems” while one’s own problems are promptly dismissed by those whose “problems” are being solved.

      Working in modernity involves having no direct part on the means of production, and the yield is exclusivity advantage for the employer.

      Working in modernity involves receiving a piece of paper (or digits on a computer screen) that isn’t guaranteed to be exchangeable for sustenance (not enough “digits” or “paper” pieces, the core of the meme).

      You mentioned how we wouldn’t have medicine, but medicine comes from Mother Nature (except for petroleum or other very artificial sources, practically every drug from pharmacy was built from a plant that Mother Nature originally offered for free).

      Interestingly, humans existed for millions of years while modern medicine only appeared “recently” (a few centuries ago), so if medicine was sine qua non for surviving, humans would be long extinct.

      And, YouTube as part of “human survival”, are you serious?! You should’ve included Onlyfans, Tinder and LinkedIn to “survival essentials” as well (guess I’m dying as I use neither of those)! /s

      Back on the ancestral work vs modern work, the ancestral environment didn’t have climate change as a byproduct of human greedy. Species weren’t endangered by our activities. There was no hole in the Ozone layer, no PM2.5, no metallic wreckage orbiting Earth without means to be deorbited, no microplastics, no pandemics that could risk other species as well (bc there was no globalization yet).

      So I’m quite radical: I advocate that humans should pave a way to return to hunter-gathering systems among wildlife, where we used to belong, even with the use of technology (AI) that could allow us to reintegrate with Nature as seamlessly as possible.

      After all, fire was the beginning of civilization, so “fire” (as in electricity) must bring civilization to its end as we know it, before humanity goes extinct through its own fire (e.g. nuclear exchanges due to MAD or chunks of metal hitting our heads due to a Kessler Syndrome provoked by the recklessness of billionaires wet-dreaming to colonize a red planet) together with all the amazing species on this Pale Blue Dot that have nothing to do with humans’ artificially-invented problems.