4 ms·

Real slaves would find your pedantic definition of "wage slaves" offensive. No one has the perfect job, everyone thinks they should make more, have more benefi

Real slaves would find your pedantic definition of "wage slaves" offensive. No one has the perfect job, everyone thinks they should make more, have more benefits, more freedom. But everyone has choices. You don't have to participate in the rat race, you can stop letting material possessions drive your lifestyle decisions.

defined 9y ago
Everyone has choices, it's true. The choices that are available, however, have an extreme variance from person to person. At the extremely shitty end, Viktor Frankl, while a captive of a Nazi death camp, worked out that when all other choices are taken from a person, the only remaining one is to die with dignity. But it's a choice, right? At the other end of the spectrum, choices may include where to vacation this winter or if the maid should be fired. The bottom line is that the quality and quantity of choices vary so much, depending on luck and pluck, that it's a bit glib to say "everyone has choices", including, I guess, the choice between working a crappy, abusive, mean job or two to make ends meet, or starve.
prodmerc 9y ago
Depends on the slave, but I call bullshit on "don't have to participate". If I don't participate, in 3-4 months I'd be homeless and with nothing to eat. What gives?
- valuearb 9y ago
  I didn't say you didn't have to work. I said you didn't have to participate in the rat race. For most of human history, choosing not to work for 3 months meant starvation and death. Hunter-gatherers had to work. My brother is 50 years old and has delivered pizzas for about the last 20 years. He only works enough to afford to rent a room, own a car, and pay for an annual ski pass, and skiing/volleyball gear. He spends his free time on the mountain and the lake. He obviously doesn't own many material possessions and his retirement isn't going to be pretty. But that choice was his, he had opportunities to work corporate and make far more money, own more stuff, and maybe raise a family, but he chose to have more freedom and the lifestyle he preferred.
Cpoll 9y ago
"It could be worse" fallacy. I don't think everyone has the luxury to philosophize about giving up material possessions and exiting the rat race, either. A lot of people are living from paycheck to paycheck (or worse), have dependents, and don't have the prospects to find a new job. Those people can't afford to say "no" to their boss' unreasonable demands.

defined 9y ago

Everyone has choices, it's true. The choices that are available, however, have an extreme variance from person to person. At the extremely shitty end, Viktor Frankl, while a captive of a Nazi death camp, worked out that when all other choices are taken from a person, the only remaining one is to die with dignity. But it's a choice, right? At the other end of the spectrum, choices may include where to vacation this winter or if the maid should be fired. The bottom line is that the quality and quantity of choices vary so much, depending on luck and pluck, that it's a bit glib to say "everyone has choices", including, I guess, the choice between working a crappy, abusive, mean job or two to make ends meet, or starve.

prodmerc 9y ago

Depends on the slave, but I call bullshit on "don't have to participate". If I don't participate, in 3-4 months I'd be homeless and with nothing to eat. What gives?

valuearb 9y ago
I didn't say you didn't have to work. I said you didn't have to participate in the rat race. For most of human history, choosing not to work for 3 months meant starvation and death. Hunter-gatherers had to work. My brother is 50 years old and has delivered pizzas for about the last 20 years. He only works enough to afford to rent a room, own a car, and pay for an annual ski pass, and skiing/volleyball gear. He spends his free time on the mountain and the lake. He obviously doesn't own many material possessions and his retirement isn't going to be pretty. But that choice was his, he had opportunities to work corporate and make far more money, own more stuff, and maybe raise a family, but he chose to have more freedom and the lifestyle he preferred.

Cpoll 9y ago

"It could be worse" fallacy. I don't think everyone has the luxury to philosophize about giving up material possessions and exiting the rat race, either. A lot of people are living from paycheck to paycheck (or worse), have dependents, and don't have the prospects to find a new job. Those people can't afford to say "no" to their boss' unreasonable demands.