4 ms·

> Have you never seen or heard of volunteers? Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons. > There are countries where the unemployed get money,

> Have you never seen or heard of volunteers? Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons. > There are countries where the unemployed get money, e.g. the UK, and yet most people still work. How does this fit into your claim? You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is. If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work. Guys please stop deciding you want to be upset about a comment and then trying to backsolve your rationale.

colineartheta 6y ago
Or, perhaps you’re just wrong? You can’t even be bothered to answer the simple question of when socialism has been attempted.
jodrellblank 6y ago
> "Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons." Yes, and that disproves your claim that people only work for money, and without more money people won't do more work. > "You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is." If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work.*" Volunteers earn no extra money for their work, and yet still work. Many people work unpaid overtime out of loyalty for their employer / coworkers / customers / patients, many people work out of passion and interest and hobbying ("starving artist" trope). And, again, you're propagandising "Socialism" changing from "people get money without working" to "people can't get more than a fixed limited return on their work", which again it isn't. But let's go with that definition - if everything collectively owned, the more stuff there is the more stuff is collectively owned, so the more benefit everyone gets. When the Federal Government builds more roads, you personally get more roads you can drive on as a benefit. So even if Socialism was "you can't earn more than the minimum wage {because the collective takes it from you!}", you are part of the collective, so it still wouldn't be the case that people got no more benefit for producing more, as you claim.

colineartheta 6y ago

Or, perhaps you’re just wrong? You can’t even be bothered to answer the simple question of when socialism has been attempted.

jodrellblank 6y ago

> "Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons." Yes, and that disproves your claim that people only work for money, and without more money people won't do more work. > "You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is." If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work.*" Volunteers earn no extra money for their work, and yet still work. Many people work unpaid overtime out of loyalty for their employer / coworkers / customers / patients, many people work out of passion and interest and hobbying ("starving artist" trope). And, again, you're propagandising "Socialism" changing from "people get money without working" to "people can't get more than a fixed limited return on their work", which again it isn't. But let's go with that definition - if everything collectively owned, the more stuff there is the more stuff is collectively owned, so the more benefit everyone gets. When the Federal Government builds more roads, you personally get more roads you can drive on as a benefit. So even if Socialism was "you can't earn more than the minimum wage {because the collective takes it from you!}", you are part of the collective, so it still wouldn't be the case that people got no more benefit for producing more, as you claim.