Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible
You tax a couple dozen ultra rich billionaires and a couple dozen ultra profitable companies. There's plenty of money. We don't need to print more. And each doesn't need the spare $20B anyways.
/r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
201–210 of 566 posts
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on wsb.
What do you want to know? I think r/wallstreetbets is still a fantastic place and more or less true to its purpose of finding interesting and novel trades. Much of the discussion has expanded, to discord (600K users, the limit) as well as the daily reddit talks (Think clubhouse but for reddit). The daily thread is still fantastic for a very quick list of interesting topics, which you can jump into and have a conversa…
I find this interesting because to me one of the biggest attractions to Reddit (and HN for that matter) is how deemphasized the user is. I almost never read usernames and rarely remember who anyone is.
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#203I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…
That won't be enough. Not just because there are an awful lot of Boomers and post-boomers who can't even go to retirement because they don't have a pension they can live on (which in turn is a problem because all the jobs that the Boomer pensioners occupy can't be done by younger people)... but also because the status quo is not a result of Boomers being Boomers (as group of people born in the decades after WW2), it's a result of how society itself is set up.
In German, we have a saying "wer mit 20 noch kein Kommunist ist, hat kein Herz - und wer es mit 30 immer noch ist, keinen Verstand", roughly translated to "who is not yet a communist by age 20 doesn't have a heart and who still is a communist by age 30, has no common sense".
Basically, society itself has over millennia evolved into acquiring wealth and disbursing that wealth down to one's children (which up to maybe a hundred years ago meant, the male children), and it's no coincidence that age 30 was around the age where young men and women bought their house and "settled down". And once you have that house, your car, your family after a decade of education and another decade of hard work... why would you be incentivized to allow others the same status as you have now, without them having to put in the same work? Why would you risk your freedom, your job, your investment, your assets and go on the streets and riot until the elite comes crashing down like it deserves?
Of course, there are idealists who nevertheless take on that risk, and those who have failed the rat race or got left behind somewhere, but let's be realistic: the numbers alone are an advantage to the elites.
The danger that modern Western capitalist society is now, of course, that it has allowed too many people to fall behind economical progress - which is what fueled the rise of right-wing populism across the US and Europe over the last decades. And I'm afraid that even though it may seem like we have passed over the worst (with Trump and Netanyahu getting booted out of office, BoJo going down in flames, even Italy's right wing being unable to put up a candidate)... I'm afraid that the events of the last six to eight years have only been a tiny warning and we are headed for something much bigger and especially much worse.
The world needs to do a lot of change to hope to tackle the climate crisis... lots of the current standard that us Westerners are used to is simply unsustainable (e.g. always a wide selection of fresh, world-wide sourced produce and meat in the supermarket, cross-continental flights for under a hundred euros) which means that an already disgruntled population will have to cut back, and the population of poor and rising developing countries that sees the Western abundance on Instagram will not be happy to hear that they won't even get the chance of obtaining that wealth level.
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#204I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…
>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible
In some circumstances this is actually a good idea. One core idea of Modern Monetary Theory is that printing money is only inflationary when the economy is at capacity.
So giving money to people that can't or won't work actually drives growth because they can spend.
If you moralize about economics or think MMT is wrong, this sounds like a horrible idea. If you only care about results, then it's a great idea.
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#205I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…
>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible
I'm not a committed supporter of UBI, so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt (or more) but I assume the whole point is to promote wealth redistribution. Not print money. So you give everyone some amount, say 12K/year, and then support it with taxes.
It sounds infeasible with the current budget, because of course it is. But modeling the final result isn't that simple I'd guess. More money into the circle, so the circle gets bigger, etc. So while it'd be easy to shoot it down using a single iteration of the circle, I'd like to see someone do a longer term simulation. I'm sure they have, I just haven't seen it.
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then how can it be true that Doreen still represents the movement Represents the "movement", or represents the sub? They obviously still represented the sub - they were there when it got created, were a moderator, were picked by other moderators to be a representative of the subreddit in media events (which is conflated with the nebulous concept of "the movement") The issue here is that the "movement" may not be re…
You could ask the same about Fox - which is hardly ground zero for sanity itself. Does it represent a movement, or a TV channel? If it's a movement, by what process was it elected? Point being I doubt anyone at Fox was unhappy with how the Doreen interview turned out. Did they ask to interview anyone else from the sub? All this really does is highlight the difference between online opinionation - always easy - and ef…
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#207This reminds me of "Defund the Police", wherein supporters would try to convince others that the slogan did not literally mean what it says. Like AntiWork, It seems to have been started by those who genuinely wanted to abolish the police. But as time went on people joined who instead wanted to reform the police by dramatically cutting back what they were meant to respond to. But the slogan stayed, and was very mislea…
>Defund the Police That slogan was straight up political malpractice. If you have to explain your position, then you're already losing. Something like "government accountability" or "serve the people" probably could have gotten wider support than "defund the police."
Defund the police means defunding the police. Over half of all city taxes go to funding the police forces, who do little to no good for the community with the money they're given. Buying more tanks and assault weapons and fancy cars and employing people who live in big macmansions in the suburbs isn't helping us.
Concervatives act like the word "defund" means the same as "abolish" when talking about the police, but then are happy to talk about defunding education, or defunding planned parenthood, or defunding medicare, defunding social security, defunding sanctuary cities, etc fully expecting their base to understand that they don't mean "abolish".
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#208I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…
>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible
That's generally not the expectation. The expectation is that there's more than enough wealth to allow for everyone to have a baseline of income to meet their most basic needs. You want to buy a house, buy a car, travel, eat at fancy restaurants, buy expensive things, you still have to work. But if you want to quit your job and find another one you don't need to fear starvation or eviction because you are without income for a few months.
It's the same logic as preventative medicine. Instead of dishing out money for surgery you can catch problems earlier when they are cheaper to fix.
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#209I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…
>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible
If you just pay people to sit on their asses, many of them are just going to sit on their asses, creating nothing, simply consuming resources. The host (civilized society) cannot survive when everyone is a leech.
Re: /r/antiwork: A tragedy of sanewashing and social gentrification
#210I remember stumbling upon /r/antiwork a few years ago and being so happy I'd stumbled upon a thriving movement that so effectively criticized one of the core principles of society that everyone takes for granted - that everyone must effectively sell their labor to someone else (unless they're rich enough to opt out, or clever enough to create some business or invest their way out). To me anti-work is the recognition…
>Universal basic income I'm going to sound like I'm being snarky here, and I promise I'm not. How exactly is this supposed to work? The government prints money and gives it away for free, nobody has to work? I don't say this from a place of privilege. I grew up lower class trailer trash and have been homeless. Maybe I don't understand the concept fully but it seems a bit absurd and unfeasible
A lot of people also believe that a huge percentage of society is engaging in "bullshit" jobs because there isn't enough real work that needs to be done.