It’s a meme

  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    See you’re still trapped within the logic of capitalism which maximizes profits and expansion over other concerns.

    So, assuming we want to keep everyone (including useless people who’d rather have beer instead of reading a book to learn the new stuff), the income of everyone will just go down over time. Eventually, with no one getting fire there won’t be enough money to go around to feed them. What am I missing here?

    These are all massive assumptions

    • Devouring@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry but you’re evading my questions.

      That’s OK. I’m not looking to “win” here. Just think about what I said, and next time you have this discussion, have good answers. Maybe you’ll change your mind one day and understand why the world we live in is the way we live in. Not that things can’t be improve or that we’re drowning in corruption. But that’s another topic for another day. Have a good one.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe you’ll change your mind one day and understand why the world we live in is the way we live in.

        This from the person who is spouting econ 101 nonsense.

        • Devouring@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You haven’t presented a valid argument. 2+2 is simple, but it works. When someone says the 2+2=10^50, and money falls from the sky, and everyone being lazy leads to growth, I’ll ask them to justify.

          Take a step back and evaluate your ego.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately in the case of econ 101, you are taught that 2+2=5 most modern econ is neoclassical, which means operating on pre-marx economics and just ignoring marxist critiques of the political economy.

            and money falls from the sky, and everyone being lazy leads to growth, I’ll ask them to justify.

            Thats a mighty strawman you invented. Workers are going to do the bare minimum to not get fired when it literally doesn’t matter how much they work, their income will be the same. When workers are invested in an organization, they do more work.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your only question is “what am I missing” and the answer is an economics education.

                But to address your “concerns” you’re operating on the mindset of maximizing profit to compete against other firms maximizing profit, which is only a problem under capitalism (until you reach the monopoly stage)

                • Devouring@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nice try evading the question. Try again.

                  Read the post. Read my question. Tell me what’s wrong in my scenario and how it’ll work in your “well-educated” mind.

                  If you understand it, you can explain it to a 5-year old.

                  Let’s see what your next excuse is gonna be.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You literally only have one question, the rest of it is opining.

                    You’re assuming a wage labor model and that people working twice as efficiently and at half intensity would result in decreased production.

                    1. wage labor models aren’t universal

                    2. there is no reasoning stated for why production would go down

                    You’re assuming people would have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. This is based on the logic of firms competing to capture market share. There isn’t really a rational reason for this to need to happen under systems were the point is to accommodate human need, not to maximize profit.