It’s a meme

  • 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.

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

                  I haven’t said that people have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. I said that assuming a normal/average growth (and let’s even make it simpler for you and ignore growth), and assuming a breakthrough requires many new people to hired to work with a new technology, then the people who are there and who aren’t interested in learning the new way of doing things, will just become a burden to the company. Let’s do the math:

                  • More people are hired
                  • Same output is maintained

                  Let’s do the 5th grade math: Same output / More people = less earner per person every time this happens

                  Meaning: If this trend continuous due to multiple breakthroughs (which isn’t crazy, we have seen tons of those in the last 25 years in different sectors), then this company is destined to become bankrupt, especially because people will continuously keep earning less with no lower-bound to that other zero, to the point where it’s not enough to make a living.

                  Nothing you said answers this dilemma. You keep talking about general things and avoid this (very realistic) scenario that keeps happening. How will such a company survive?

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

                    Thats it interesting scenario, but why are you assuming that there is a significant segment that won’t want to learn, especially when they’re no longer alienated from their labor? And why are you assuming that the total laborers will increase with new technology, when you can retrain existing workers?

                    I dont think your scenario is realistic, it kinda reads as really misanthropic