Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

truthout.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 260 posts

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#241

Post by robertlagrant »

LightG wrote: post #128
qaq wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you will but you will never get it though. Because there will be a class of people who decide who should get that extra 3 meters and as my experience growing up in USSR tells me it's ain't gonna be you.

A class of people? You mean our democratically elected officials? For all their flaws, I would rather they do something productive with "some" of the resources we're talking about here rather than putting it to use on just another bottle of Dom Perignon. Sure, even that generates economic activity, but there are much better economically multiplying activities that can be invested in.

Officials are not democratically elected.

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#242

Post by robertlagrant »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #197
robertlagrant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given most people are not super-wealthy, popular shows are much more likely to have been sympathetic to that view. No one wants to watch a show that says "Actually things are pretty good compared to how they were, and still improving, and while there are a few really rich people in the world, it wouldn't change your life for the better if they didn't exist."

Most people wouldn’t watch that show, but well-off people would definitely read that Steven Pinker book to feel better about their insulated comfort in a suffering world. I guess people have different media preferences. To Pinker’s credit, even he wouldn’t make such a wildly hyperbolic understatement of global inequality. At least not in public, maybe on Epstein’s plane.

The problem is inequality is the wrong metric. Standard of living is the right one.

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#243

Post by burnished »

robertlagrant wrote: post #240
burnished wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. They'd still keep building boats right? Except they wouldn't exclusively serve the ultra wealthy. Because the market wouldn't exist. Because people shouldn't be insanely wealthy. Because that comes at a cost to other people and is entirely a function of social systems, systems that we should make benefit everyone and not just a select few.

So if they're still building boats (presumably for no one?) Then they won't be the nurses etc earlier in the thread that this line of reasoning was countering.

It seems like you're struggling to imagine what people would even do with their lives if the industries that cropped up to service the ultra wealthy dissapeared. I am here to reveal to you, they would just work for other people performing needed services or producing goods. Simply put, there would be more for everyone else if the ultra wealthy did not exist to suck up so many resources.

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#244

Post by LightG »

robertlagrant wrote: post #241
LightG wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A class of people? You mean our democratically elected officials? For all their flaws, I would rather they do something productive with "some" of the resources we're talking about here rather than putting it to use on just another bottle of Dom Perignon. Sure, even that generates economic activity, but there are much better economically multiplying activities that can be invested in.

Officials are not democratically elected.

Mine is. Sorry if you're living in North Korea. I'm rooting for your revolution.

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#245

Post by robertlagrant »

burnished wrote: post #243
robertlagrant wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they're still building boats (presumably for no one?) Then they won't be the nurses etc earlier in the thread that this line of reasoning was countering.

It seems like you're struggling to imagine what people would even do with their lives if the industries that cropped up to service the ultra wealthy dissapeared. I am here to reveal to you, they would just work for other people performing needed services or producing goods. Simply put, there would be more for everyone else if the ultra wealthy did not exist to suck up so many resources.

Not at all - you've badly misread what I said.

You and one other person in this thread are saying:

- the super rich shouldn't be around because they employ people to do the wrong jobs; those people should do other jobs, and removing the super rich is how we achieve this important aim

- the super rich aren't required to keep those people employed; the same demand will magically appear if we remove the super rich

You are particularly distinguished because you say both at different points, which is funny. But I am commenting at one time or another on either of those points above.

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#246

Post by seoulmetro »

Kaze404 wrote: post #153
seoulmetro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because it wasn't about rich and poor and their roles in society. It was about rich and poor and how each one differs significantly. So many people read the wrong way into that movie and it's disappointing. It has absolutely nothing to do with "class clashing or class struggling against each other" no matter how much the media wants to make you think that.

"Something I was struck by in the movie is that there's a huge lack of class solidarity between the various working class people. What inspired you to write the relationships that way? You point out something very important. You know, in Mother, you see the have nots and the needy clawing at each other and hurting one another. On the other hand, in The Host, you see the solidarity between them, they save each other a…

"You could say".

Bong Joon Ho would be a fool to write that everyone read the wrong thing into his movie.

The weak and have-nots are definitely not fighting each other in Parasite.

If you want to read his real thoughts, read the interviews surrounding the releases of The Host and Mother. Or possibly something entirely for a Korean audience beyond the release of Parasite.

Edit: Actually, I read it wrong. And I guess so did you. He is saying the same exact thing I am. Your quote from Bong Joon Ho doesn't actually reference any class fighting. It represents the lower class fighting itself.

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#247

Post by seoulmetro »

watwut wrote: post #150
seoulmetro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because it wasn't about rich and poor and their roles in society. It was about rich and poor and how each one differs significantly. So many people read the wrong way into that movie and it's disappointing. It has absolutely nothing to do with "class clashing or class struggling against each other" no matter how much the media wants to make you think that.

They said that it is good analogy to class conflict tho. And it is. But not in the "class clashing or class struggling against each other" nor "good lower class against bad upper class" interpretations. The actual class conflict does involve lower class fighting among themselves for little. All while powerful class is mostly confused, occupied by own issues until it hits them and then try to contain the violence. I t…

It's not a good analogy to class conflict. It's a good analogy to struggling within a class, and the struggle to leave your class. It has absolutely nothing to do with class VS class.

Class conflict is mostly the action of classes conflicting with each other. Otherwise it's just people conflict.

>I think that movie just dont conform to Hollywood tropes.

It's not a Hollywood movie, why would it care about Hollywood tropes? I take it you haven't seen much Korean cinema?

>but they are not obvious good guys.

Yes. That's the most important thing about the movie. Neither side are bad guys, but they're both doing what their class is made to do. Poor guys are made to get their money in any way they can, rich are made to spend it and not work. When poor finds poor trying to get the same rewards, things get ugly.

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#248

Post by v-erne »

robertlagrant wrote: post #238
v-erne wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen this sentiment and on the surface its looks right. But I feel that we are missing here some real studies that should be done into impact of life style of the rich on the whole economy. I know few rich people (some of them ungodly rich). And seeing glimpses of their life style I cannot simply ignore cohorts of supporting jobs that make it all possibile (just to mentions few : private guards, house keeps, g…

> And seeing glimpses of their life style I cannot simply ignore cohorts of supporting jobs that make it all possibile You shouldn't ignore them. They all get paid, which circulates money through the economy.

Sure, but I believe that money and money circulation is only means to an end and this feels like loosing the sight of end goal. Its a bit like saying that war is a viable economy booster (it can eventually create economic boom like WW2 has done in mamy countries that were rebuilding but this only make sens if You ingnore the obvious upfront costs)

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#249

Post by robertlagrant »

Xylakant wrote: post #168
qaq wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that includes real estate in Monaco priced at 100K per square meter, works of arts jewels, stocks trading at 100+ PE etc. e.g. sh#t not convertible into shelter, food and other things people need. It's not that elastic on a gloabl scale.

The majority of this is ownership, for example the Quandt family owns nearly 50% of BMW. Stefan Quandt alone owns 25% of BMW. It's pretty elastic - and that wealth share of 700 billion is owned by 500 out of 80 Million people or 0.000625% of the population.

> The majority of this is ownership, for example the Quandt family owns nearly 50% of BMW.

This is still based on two massive misunderstandings:

1. This share is cash, when it is not. It is just evaluated as a cash value for simplicity. Removing these people's shareholding does not make actual money appear.

2. People have to buy shares in order for them to be worth anything. Why would anyone buy shares in your world?

Re: Half a million South Korean workers walk off jobs in general strike

#250

Post by robertlagrant »

v-erne wrote: post #248
robertlagrant wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And seeing glimpses of their life style I cannot simply ignore cohorts of supporting jobs that make it all possibile You shouldn't ignore them. They all get paid, which circulates money through the economy.

Sure, but I believe that money and money circulation is only means to an end and this feels like loosing the sight of end goal. Its a bit like saying that war is a viable economy booster (it can eventually create economic boom like WW2 has done in mamy countries that were rebuilding but this only make sens if You ingnore the obvious upfront costs)

There is no end goal. The end is not in sight for progress; we need to keep going, and keep in place the one system that has really allowed it.

And yes, they are a means to an end (uplift your family's lot; achieve personal goals through the choices money allows; stay healthy as long as possible; etc etc).

Post reply on HN