9 ms·

Well, Marx and Engels did accurately identify that a large reserve of under-employed workers, or people who didn't previously participate in the labor force, is

Well, Marx and Engels did accurately identify that a large reserve of under-employed workers, or people who didn't previously participate in the labor force, is what enables the most exploitative jobs. All necessities in life cost money: food, housing, childcare, healthcare; and those in the most precarious social positions are the people most willing to accept abusive employment for reasons directly tied to their survival. This is a natural consequence of a socioeconomic system that asks everyone to fend for themselves.

conanbatt 9y ago
Please, the world had 94% extreme poverty in their time, and its down to less than 10%. The model of exploitation they have cannot possible account for that. I have tremendous sympathy for the empathic pain they had by seeing those levels of exploitation. Das Kapital's first volume is basically 50% accounts of child labor and exploitation. But they had no way to know that when the state holds the capital the results are even worse, had marx seen the soviet union at its prime he would have probably revised his own theory. Marx's reserve army doesn't hold water. And he himself denounces that one of the most common ways of the exploitative model was precisely how much the aristocrats ignored private property rights and pushed people to extreme poverty and marginalization. He had and still has many interesting ideas, but he was very much wrong about many of them. Which is fine, all these economists got things super wrong. And another interesting point Marx made: Look how well America is doing! Europe should be like that.
- vkou 9y ago
  > The model of exploitation they have cannot possible account for that. No, what accounts for that is access to incredibly cheap energy, in the form of fossil fuels and electrification. Energy is what lifted people out of poverty, not any of that other nonsense. Without coal, oil, and hydro power, most of us would still be subsistence peasants, regardless of whether or not we would live in Communism, Feudalism, Capitalism, Fascism, or some other -ism.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    Out of curiosity, what is your model for the dramatic examples of India and China, which were faced with relative stagnation and incredibly dire, largely-intractable poverty for decades after WWII; followed by liberalizing (incrementally) their markets and explosive growth+massive declines in extreme poverty thereafter? I don't know a ton about the economic history of these two countries, but prima facie this seems to belie your claim that it was simply energy availability.
    - Retric 9y ago
      There are counter examples to India and China that resulted in high standards of living without liberalizing markets, generally from valuable natural resources and low populations. There are zero examples without access to cheap energy. PS: The China boom looks 'good' mostly due to how terrible the country was run prior to that. Expand the time scale and compare to other countries and things don't look nearly as good.
    - vkou 9y ago
      India's explosive growth [1] followed electrification, not lead it. [2] It's 'intractable poverty' following WWII was only 'intractable' because of colonial exploitation - the British Empire squeezed it for cheap resources, labour, and wealth (By forcing Indian markets open to imports, and by banning some forms of local production - Gandhi's salt march was an example of resistance to that.) At the same time, the empire did not actually invest in the same kind of infrastructure that Europe enjoyed for close to a century. China's a bit of a different case - but for contrast, compare it to the USSR. Despite three decades of war, civil war, near-genocidal purges, and some more war, by the 60s and 70s, it has lifted millions of people out of a similar level of intractable poverty. Again, not on the back of its economic system, but on the back of industrialization. It's hard to stay poor (Compared to world poverty in the 1800s) when you have running water, indoor plumbing, and electricity. [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/india/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/india/gdp-per-capita [2] https://www.slideshare.net/ashishverma061/growth-of-electricity-sector-in-india-since-1947-to-2015 https://www.slideshare.net/ashishverma061/growth-of-electric... - Slide 16.
- bbddg 9y ago
  Extreme poverty is defined as someone living on less than $1.25 a day. Do you think that exploitation isn't occurring as long as someone isn't living in extreme poverty?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    The exploitation model needs self-generating poverty. If it is lifting people out of poverty then it is destroying itself, as it will run out of the required poor people. You can argue its not going fast enough, but the direction is unequivocally upwards so far.
    - bbddg 9y ago
      Well now you're conflating extreme poverty with poverty. There are millions of people living in poverty in the united states. And you don't really need someone to be in complete poverty to exploit them. Also, the direction currently is towards stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        > Well now you're conflating extreme poverty with poverty. There are millions of people living in poverty in the united states. And you don't really need someone to be in complete poverty to exploit them. After extreme poverty ends, you get poverty to uplift and so on. > Also, the direction currently is towards stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality. The problem with such nice catchphrases that are repeated over and over by interest groups is that they are inaccurate, and often end up advocating for even higher inequality.
        bbddg 9y ago
        > The problem with such nice catchphrases that are repeated over and over by interest groups is that they are inaccurate, and often end up advocating for even higher inequality. What specifically is an "inaccurate catchphrase" in what I've said?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >had marx seen the soviet union at its prime he would have probably revised his own theory. Actually I don't think so. Even Marx saw that socialism was a stage of history which followed from capitalism. In the same way that feudalism's aristocracy provides the conditions which create a merchant class that eventually overthrows the aristocracy, Marx sees capitalism and capitalists as providing the conditions which create a working class which eventually overthrows the capitalists. He would probably be annoyed with the soviets for trying to skip most of a phase and he would probably be annoyed with us, modern westerners, for not recognizing where in history we are - with rising inequality, increasing productivity but stagnating wages and the general increasing returns to capital. >Marx's reserve army doesn't hold water. Doesn't it? With chronic unemployment persisting since our most recent crash and now that we're finally reaching low unemployment ten years later, wages haven't moved much. If you explained the idea without mentioning Marx I think most people on the street would intuitively agree.
  - fastball 9y ago
    You don't think stagnation in wages can be attributed to the massive increase in women in the workforce? Supply and demand, after all.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Overall I think the point is who cares what caused an increase in labor supply? It doesn't matter from where Marx's reserve army originates, just that capitalists desire and ensure that it exists to the detriment of the working class.
      - fastball 9y ago
        You really think that women as a group qualify as a reserve army?
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Again, the composition of the industrial reserve really isn't the point. They're the able to work and unemployed. Whether we have at times integrated previously unused reserves on the basis of race or gender or class is basically irrelevant. The point is the fact of the reserve - that it exists. Look at 2008 on, we've had quite a substantial reserve with quite a diverse composition. But it's there, ensuring that wages won't rise (or rise much) during the boom times. Perhaps we might have a better discussion if you told me what it is you're actually driving at because I'm not quite sure I see it.
- tomaskafka 9y ago
  The model said that > large reserve of under-employed workers, or people who didn't previously participate in the labor force, is what enables the most exploitative jobs This still holds.
TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I believe it is technically possible to construct machines that produce most of life’s basic necessities at zero marginal cost. I am generally interested in finding others who want to work with me to design the first prototypes of these machines. We can build any system we’d like.
- allthenews 9y ago
  The "marginal" costs come from gathering and refining the raw resources that the machines operate on, and maintenance. We already have machines that produce food. Why do you think they are still manned by an entire workforce? Out of sadism?
- josephv 9y ago
  So you have whatever mental model you have dreamed up for zero marginal production costs. Does this zero cost production include zero spoilage during the zero cost logistics to move the zero cost food, water, and shelter? Of course, we can build all of those things because we'd like it. Zero marginal cost world peace awaits us! I encourage you to chase this! I also encourage a backup plan.
- jpao79 9y ago
  I find these guy inspiring: Backyard aeroponics: self-sustaining farm for Wisconsin cold - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4gsnFJRAB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4gsnFJRAB0 Internet of Farming: Arduino-based, backyard aquaponics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wWTadsBDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wWTadsBDA
GuB-42 9y ago
I don't think it is completely true. In shitty countries, most people have a "job" working for the local dictator. They are exploited by force. It works because most work is just manual labor, they don't need highly skilled, well educated workers. It is not the case in developed countries. For example, we don't increase food production by just adding more farmers with hand tools. We have mechanical engineers making more efficient machines, chemists producing better fertilizers, scientists studying plant growth, etc... These people need a high level of education, which mean they need the time and resources to study. People starving won't make the skilled workers employers need. What really enables exploitative jobs is the need for exploitative jobs.
- knieveltech 9y ago
  Please explain this "need" for exploitative jobs. Edit: No, I'm serious, I want someone to supply an internally consistent rationale that explains why corporations or society in general requires someone getting fucked over to function.
  - castle-bravo 9y ago
    I think what the parent post is saying is that exploitative labour practices enable the existence of elites with enough leisure time to create philosophical and technological progress. It's basically the argument that there would be no great classical civilization without slavery, so slavery is justified by the achievements of the civilizations that used it. I would like to think that in the 21st century we could have idleness for many, and abusive exploitation for none.
  - fastball 9y ago
    In OP's parlance, a shit job is an exploitative job. He is saying that through progress there are fewer "shit" jobs, so there are fewer people exploited. It never has been and never will be economically viable to pay a ditch digger the same amount as a doctor. So as long as jobs like ditch-digging exists, people must be "exploited" to fill them.
    - 9y ago
komali2 9y ago
>accept abusive employment My friends and I tried to "end game" the conservative mindset and I hadn't thought of this option. Our exercise was: if hard conservatives achieved their goal of, say, eliminating food stamps, what would happen? Presumably private churches etc couldn't pick up all the slack so the only thing we could think of was skyrocketing crime. What, are people going to just starve to death when they could simply walk out of Safeway with ten loaves of bread and a jar of peanut butter?
- aswanson 9y ago
  Causing a rapid increase in gun sales. Two tenets of the platform hit with one stone.
- fastball 9y ago
  Why is getting a job not an option?
  - komali2 9y ago
    Do you think the only people on food stamps are the unemployed? But, Felony conviction, kids that need watching, physical disability, mental disability, age, lack of language skills, lack of any working skills, lack of available jobs for education level, lack of jobs at all, explicit or implicit racism, off the top of my head. If you think "laziness" belongs on the list, pm me and I'll send you a digital copy of "Evicted."
    - fastball 9y ago
      All of those things make getting/holding a job harder. None of them make it impossible. I never claimed life is fair, but does unfairness really justify criminality? Also, as the underlying discussion is "why might honest people need to steal food?", it's not very reasonable to include felony convictions as the first item on your list.
      - komali2 9y ago
otalp 9y ago
It's interesting because Marx was writing in a time where automation was considered to even more imminent than it is today. Most intellectuals of the time were of the opinion that work weeks would reduce to 20 hours in a few decades, and people would live in leisure. One thing Marx got right was this: He said that as long as Capitalism is the dominant system, there will always be full-time employment for the masses. There will be new jobs created in new fields which are far removed from producing goods(jobs like advertising, insurance, etc.). Marx thought that humans as a whole will never work for significantly fewer hours as long as capitalism exists. Incidentally, Marx was vehemently opposed to things like Universal Healthcare, better Labour laws, Mandatory Vacation and a higher minimum wage. He famously said that if these things were considered Marxist, he himself was 'not a Marxist'. The reason? Because these measures are beneficial to capitalism in the long run because workers are more likely to stay working under a capitalist as their life is bearable. When conditions deteriorate, that is the time that workers are going to revolt and try to own the means of production. So in reality most of the stuff liberals advocate like better pay and healthcare are decidedly anti-marxist and pro-capitalist. It is opposed by some corporations because they care more about short term profits rather than the long term sustenance of capitalism.
- java_script 9y ago
  Yup, ideologically, liberals are the enemy of leftists unfortunately. And much closer to neo-cons. It’s why you’ll never see an actual Marxist anti-Imperialist on the masthead of so-called left-leaning (by some) pubs like NYT, WaPo, the Atlantic, etc. But they’ll happily hire tons of right wingers in the name of “ideological diversity” (see Kevin Williamson, Bari Weiss, plus the ones that have actually stayed on)
jpao79 9y ago
What's interesting is if you look at percentage household spending, food and healthcare are really the only recurring ones that are not trending downward: - housing - trending downward when not attempting to live in dense urban area (i.e. prefab modular homes) - energy - trending downward once renewables and battery technology catch up - transportation - trending downward when looking at non-luxury cars as well as on demand (Uber, etc.) and electric cars powered by renewables - childcare/education - trending downward when combined with homeschooling and MOOCs like Coursera, Udacity) - clothes - trending downward when you focus on store brands - entertainment - trending downward (Youtube) What happens if you could build an automated machine that you owned that farmed for you in your backyard and its cost trended downward? Then really the only cost that needs to be managed is healthcare.
ataturk 9y ago
Which socioeconomic systems don't force everyone to fend for themselves? Are you talking about communism? Because under communism, not only are you completely naked and on your against the full coercion of the state, when things inevitably go bad, they murder you and throw you and 10,000 other people into the same ditch.

conanbatt 9y ago

Please, the world had 94% extreme poverty in their time, and its down to less than 10%. The model of exploitation they have cannot possible account for that. I have tremendous sympathy for the empathic pain they had by seeing those levels of exploitation. Das Kapital's first volume is basically 50% accounts of child labor and exploitation. But they had no way to know that when the state holds the capital the results are even worse, had marx seen the soviet union at its prime he would have probably revised his own theory. Marx's reserve army doesn't hold water. And he himself denounces that one of the most common ways of the exploitative model was precisely how much the aristocrats ignored private property rights and pushed people to extreme poverty and marginalization. He had and still has many interesting ideas, but he was very much wrong about many of them. Which is fine, all these economists got things super wrong. And another interesting point Marx made: Look how well America is doing! Europe should be like that.

vkou 9y ago
> The model of exploitation they have cannot possible account for that. No, what accounts for that is access to incredibly cheap energy, in the form of fossil fuels and electrification. Energy is what lifted people out of poverty, not any of that other nonsense. Without coal, oil, and hydro power, most of us would still be subsistence peasants, regardless of whether or not we would live in Communism, Feudalism, Capitalism, Fascism, or some other -ism.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, what is your model for the dramatic examples of India and China, which were faced with relative stagnation and incredibly dire, largely-intractable poverty for decades after WWII; followed by liberalizing (incrementally) their markets and explosive growth+massive declines in extreme poverty thereafter? I don't know a ton about the economic history of these two countries, but prima facie this seems to belie your claim that it was simply energy availability.
  - Retric 9y ago
    There are counter examples to India and China that resulted in high standards of living without liberalizing markets, generally from valuable natural resources and low populations. There are zero examples without access to cheap energy. PS: The China boom looks 'good' mostly due to how terrible the country was run prior to that. Expand the time scale and compare to other countries and things don't look nearly as good.
  - vkou 9y ago
    India's explosive growth [1] followed electrification, not lead it. [2] It's 'intractable poverty' following WWII was only 'intractable' because of colonial exploitation - the British Empire squeezed it for cheap resources, labour, and wealth (By forcing Indian markets open to imports, and by banning some forms of local production - Gandhi's salt march was an example of resistance to that.) At the same time, the empire did not actually invest in the same kind of infrastructure that Europe enjoyed for close to a century. China's a bit of a different case - but for contrast, compare it to the USSR. Despite three decades of war, civil war, near-genocidal purges, and some more war, by the 60s and 70s, it has lifted millions of people out of a similar level of intractable poverty. Again, not on the back of its economic system, but on the back of industrialization. It's hard to stay poor (Compared to world poverty in the 1800s) when you have running water, indoor plumbing, and electricity. [1] https://tradingeconomics.com/india/gdp-per-capita https://tradingeconomics.com/india/gdp-per-capita [2] https://www.slideshare.net/ashishverma061/growth-of-electricity-sector-in-india-since-1947-to-2015 https://www.slideshare.net/ashishverma061/growth-of-electric... - Slide 16.
bbddg 9y ago
Extreme poverty is defined as someone living on less than $1.25 a day. Do you think that exploitation isn't occurring as long as someone isn't living in extreme poverty?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  The exploitation model needs self-generating poverty. If it is lifting people out of poverty then it is destroying itself, as it will run out of the required poor people. You can argue its not going fast enough, but the direction is unequivocally upwards so far.
  - bbddg 9y ago
    Well now you're conflating extreme poverty with poverty. There are millions of people living in poverty in the united states. And you don't really need someone to be in complete poverty to exploit them. Also, the direction currently is towards stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > Well now you're conflating extreme poverty with poverty. There are millions of people living in poverty in the united states. And you don't really need someone to be in complete poverty to exploit them. After extreme poverty ends, you get poverty to uplift and so on. > Also, the direction currently is towards stagnating wages and growing wealth inequality. The problem with such nice catchphrases that are repeated over and over by interest groups is that they are inaccurate, and often end up advocating for even higher inequality.
      - bbddg 9y ago
        > The problem with such nice catchphrases that are repeated over and over by interest groups is that they are inaccurate, and often end up advocating for even higher inequality. What specifically is an "inaccurate catchphrase" in what I've said?
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>had marx seen the soviet union at its prime he would have probably revised his own theory. Actually I don't think so. Even Marx saw that socialism was a stage of history which followed from capitalism. In the same way that feudalism's aristocracy provides the conditions which create a merchant class that eventually overthrows the aristocracy, Marx sees capitalism and capitalists as providing the conditions which create a working class which eventually overthrows the capitalists. He would probably be annoyed with the soviets for trying to skip most of a phase and he would probably be annoyed with us, modern westerners, for not recognizing where in history we are - with rising inequality, increasing productivity but stagnating wages and the general increasing returns to capital. >Marx's reserve army doesn't hold water. Doesn't it? With chronic unemployment persisting since our most recent crash and now that we're finally reaching low unemployment ten years later, wages haven't moved much. If you explained the idea without mentioning Marx I think most people on the street would intuitively agree.
- fastball 9y ago
  You don't think stagnation in wages can be attributed to the massive increase in women in the workforce? Supply and demand, after all.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Overall I think the point is who cares what caused an increase in labor supply? It doesn't matter from where Marx's reserve army originates, just that capitalists desire and ensure that it exists to the detriment of the working class.
    - fastball 9y ago
      You really think that women as a group qualify as a reserve army?
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Again, the composition of the industrial reserve really isn't the point. They're the able to work and unemployed. Whether we have at times integrated previously unused reserves on the basis of race or gender or class is basically irrelevant. The point is the fact of the reserve - that it exists. Look at 2008 on, we've had quite a substantial reserve with quite a diverse composition. But it's there, ensuring that wages won't rise (or rise much) during the boom times. Perhaps we might have a better discussion if you told me what it is you're actually driving at because I'm not quite sure I see it.
tomaskafka 9y ago
The model said that > large reserve of under-employed workers, or people who didn't previously participate in the labor force, is what enables the most exploitative jobs This still holds.

TaylorAlexander 9y ago

I believe it is technically possible to construct machines that produce most of life’s basic necessities at zero marginal cost. I am generally interested in finding others who want to work with me to design the first prototypes of these machines. We can build any system we’d like.

allthenews 9y ago
The "marginal" costs come from gathering and refining the raw resources that the machines operate on, and maintenance. We already have machines that produce food. Why do you think they are still manned by an entire workforce? Out of sadism?
josephv 9y ago
So you have whatever mental model you have dreamed up for zero marginal production costs. Does this zero cost production include zero spoilage during the zero cost logistics to move the zero cost food, water, and shelter? Of course, we can build all of those things because we'd like it. Zero marginal cost world peace awaits us! I encourage you to chase this! I also encourage a backup plan.
jpao79 9y ago
I find these guy inspiring: Backyard aeroponics: self-sustaining farm for Wisconsin cold - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4gsnFJRAB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4gsnFJRAB0 Internet of Farming: Arduino-based, backyard aquaponics - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wWTadsBDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wWTadsBDA

GuB-42 9y ago

I don't think it is completely true. In shitty countries, most people have a "job" working for the local dictator. They are exploited by force. It works because most work is just manual labor, they don't need highly skilled, well educated workers. It is not the case in developed countries. For example, we don't increase food production by just adding more farmers with hand tools. We have mechanical engineers making more efficient machines, chemists producing better fertilizers, scientists studying plant growth, etc... These people need a high level of education, which mean they need the time and resources to study. People starving won't make the skilled workers employers need. What really enables exploitative jobs is the need for exploitative jobs.

knieveltech 9y ago
Please explain this "need" for exploitative jobs. Edit: No, I'm serious, I want someone to supply an internally consistent rationale that explains why corporations or society in general requires someone getting fucked over to function.
- castle-bravo 9y ago
  I think what the parent post is saying is that exploitative labour practices enable the existence of elites with enough leisure time to create philosophical and technological progress. It's basically the argument that there would be no great classical civilization without slavery, so slavery is justified by the achievements of the civilizations that used it. I would like to think that in the 21st century we could have idleness for many, and abusive exploitation for none.
- fastball 9y ago
  In OP's parlance, a shit job is an exploitative job. He is saying that through progress there are fewer "shit" jobs, so there are fewer people exploited. It never has been and never will be economically viable to pay a ditch digger the same amount as a doctor. So as long as jobs like ditch-digging exists, people must be "exploited" to fill them.
  - 9y ago

komali2 9y ago

>accept abusive employment My friends and I tried to "end game" the conservative mindset and I hadn't thought of this option. Our exercise was: if hard conservatives achieved their goal of, say, eliminating food stamps, what would happen? Presumably private churches etc couldn't pick up all the slack so the only thing we could think of was skyrocketing crime. What, are people going to just starve to death when they could simply walk out of Safeway with ten loaves of bread and a jar of peanut butter?

aswanson 9y ago
Causing a rapid increase in gun sales. Two tenets of the platform hit with one stone.
fastball 9y ago
Why is getting a job not an option?
- komali2 9y ago
  Do you think the only people on food stamps are the unemployed? But, Felony conviction, kids that need watching, physical disability, mental disability, age, lack of language skills, lack of any working skills, lack of available jobs for education level, lack of jobs at all, explicit or implicit racism, off the top of my head. If you think "laziness" belongs on the list, pm me and I'll send you a digital copy of "Evicted."
  - fastball 9y ago
    All of those things make getting/holding a job harder. None of them make it impossible. I never claimed life is fair, but does unfairness really justify criminality? Also, as the underlying discussion is "why might honest people need to steal food?", it's not very reasonable to include felony convictions as the first item on your list.
    - komali2 9y ago

otalp 9y ago

It's interesting because Marx was writing in a time where automation was considered to even more imminent than it is today. Most intellectuals of the time were of the opinion that work weeks would reduce to 20 hours in a few decades, and people would live in leisure. One thing Marx got right was this: He said that as long as Capitalism is the dominant system, there will always be full-time employment for the masses. There will be new jobs created in new fields which are far removed from producing goods(jobs like advertising, insurance, etc.). Marx thought that humans as a whole will never work for significantly fewer hours as long as capitalism exists. Incidentally, Marx was vehemently opposed to things like Universal Healthcare, better Labour laws, Mandatory Vacation and a higher minimum wage. He famously said that if these things were considered Marxist, he himself was 'not a Marxist'. The reason? Because these measures are beneficial to capitalism in the long run because workers are more likely to stay working under a capitalist as their life is bearable. When conditions deteriorate, that is the time that workers are going to revolt and try to own the means of production. So in reality most of the stuff liberals advocate like better pay and healthcare are decidedly anti-marxist and pro-capitalist. It is opposed by some corporations because they care more about short term profits rather than the long term sustenance of capitalism.

java_script 9y ago
Yup, ideologically, liberals are the enemy of leftists unfortunately. And much closer to neo-cons. It’s why you’ll never see an actual Marxist anti-Imperialist on the masthead of so-called left-leaning (by some) pubs like NYT, WaPo, the Atlantic, etc. But they’ll happily hire tons of right wingers in the name of “ideological diversity” (see Kevin Williamson, Bari Weiss, plus the ones that have actually stayed on)

jpao79 9y ago

What's interesting is if you look at percentage household spending, food and healthcare are really the only recurring ones that are not trending downward: - housing - trending downward when not attempting to live in dense urban area (i.e. prefab modular homes) - energy - trending downward once renewables and battery technology catch up - transportation - trending downward when looking at non-luxury cars as well as on demand (Uber, etc.) and electric cars powered by renewables - childcare/education - trending downward when combined with homeschooling and MOOCs like Coursera, Udacity) - clothes - trending downward when you focus on store brands - entertainment - trending downward (Youtube) What happens if you could build an automated machine that you owned that farmed for you in your backyard and its cost trended downward? Then really the only cost that needs to be managed is healthcare.

ataturk 9y ago

Which socioeconomic systems don't force everyone to fend for themselves? Are you talking about communism? Because under communism, not only are you completely naked and on your against the full coercion of the state, when things inevitably go bad, they murder you and throw you and 10,000 other people into the same ditch.