2 ms·
In other words: [you believe] you benefit from this exploitation and you're quite satisfied with it.
by throwaway2245 6y ago
In other words: [you believe] you benefit from this exploitation and you're quite satisfied with it.
- tomp 6y agoNo, you're presented a false dichotomy. There's no "we as society" that can just magically "provide the resources". The resources must happen, i.e. somebody actually needs to do the work. In other words, it's someone's job. There is no feasible way to run a society without people doing the work. In fact, the pandemic has been a good example of this, on so many levels - farmers in UK complaining that the strawberries are going to rot on the fields without immigrant labour (because of border lockdowns), shops almost running out of food (because of supply chain breakdowns, which governments took a lot of effort to protect/reestablish), mask & PPE shortages (because there's not enough people doing the work in factories - particularly in Europe), food deliveries (i.e. someone needs to actually do the work of getting in a car and driving around), ...
- throwaway2245 6y agoGiving people sufficient basic resources for survival doesn't stop them from working. Everyone being paid more than a living wage is already choosing to do more work than they have to. Why do you assume that people would stop working, if they have a choice? It's already evident that people choose to work without coercion, if they are paid properly. My point is that coercion via threat of personal destitution is bad and should be eliminated, not that work is bad.