6 ms·

Those people in the middle of the country believe that if they all quit their jobs and demanded a government-given wage, that the country would starve to death.

Those people in the middle of the country believe that if they all quit their jobs and demanded a government-given wage, that the country would starve to death. If all of the people at facebook, google, and twitter quit their jobs, however, all that would really happen would be that the country would get a bit more peaceful. You're talking about how much is taken in taxes. These people are talking about how much is given in life.

hackyhacky 5y ago
Sounds like someone's been watching a bit too much Fox Propaganda. Farms are already subsidized by the government. Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. Who do you think pays for those subsidies, and who pays for the tariffs? Yeah, the "coastal elites" that you've been trained to hate. In farmers stopped benefiting from the largess of the coast, _they_ would starve to death, and everyone else would have cheaper food.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Just FYI if they starve to death there's no one to plant or harvest the food. Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.
  - hackyhacky 5y ago
    Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. 1. In this hypothetical situation, the cheaper food comes from abroad, now that there are no import tariffs. 2. I never said subsidies aren't necessary: I don't know how you can infer that point from what I wrote. I said that subsidies exist to protect American farmers, so American farmers should stop complaining about those who fund them. American farming is as profitable as it is now precisely due to those subsidies.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      I think you need to read up on why the subsidies were started in the first place because you're obviously clueless. The rest of your argument is laden with all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Subsidies are given for things like food because if a society doesn't of have food it's a really bad thing so the government props up the industry in bad times (in this case during the Great Depression) and we don't starve. It's not an altruistic handout, it's way of keeping you from starving to death genius. The fact that you think it's a generous handout from the "elites" and government indicates that you think it's unnecessary which means the farmers are profitable on their own and your entire asinine "hypothetical" comment about them starving to death without it gets thrown out the window. The subsidies cannot be both necessary and considered a generous handout from the coastal elites. Pick one. We import about 15% of our food supply right now. Good luck making up the other 85% with cheaper imports. Relying on external food supplies is a massive security risk and disadvantage as well.
      - light_hue_1 5y ago
        Yeah, you should definitely read up on how farming subsidies came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_Uni... Food got so stupidly cheap it makes no sense to grow it in the US anymore. So farmers demanded that people in cities pay for their lifestyles out of our taxes. And then they go around being entitled about it. I've had enough of farm welfare queens. Get farmers off of welfare and let us import food from places that can grow it competitively. If we can't make up the other 85% from somewhere else, that's great, then US farmers will show that they can grow food at a reasonable place without welfare. These hateful people that survive on the welfare handouts from cityfolk and then turn around and vote for Republican idiots like Trump have gone too far. Time to cut them off.
        arrosenberg 5y ago
        Even though I understand your outrage, it's a terrible idea to move our food chain abroad instead of subsidizing farmers. That's a huge national security risk. It would be better if the subsidies were limited to smallholders on ~100 acres or less, which would resolve the rural depression issue.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    By “they” are you talking about the enormous masses of uneducated immigrant workers, frequently derided as illegals, who work in the dirt on the farms and meat production lines of the US? Those that constitute the supermajority of agricultural labor, and who see almost none of the fruits of their labor? Or are we talking about those who Own things?
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      Are you arguing that indentured servitude is a good thing? It sounds like you're siding with the employers here.
- swordsmith 5y ago
  > Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. I think you got these backwards. Subsidies are provided because other countries imposes tariffs on US farm products.
TracePearson 5y ago
Because thats the divide? Silicon Valley vs family farms. Give me a break...
pchristensen 5y ago
To take this view you've shared charitably, what would "Those people in the middle of the country" who keep up from starving want in order to be satisfied with ... life? America? whatever bothers them about the current arrangement?
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  To be clear: these aren't my views. I live on the Coast, and probably work at the same company some of you guys work at. I just also happen to have close friends who live outside of the bubble we all inhabit. They think that they want to be left alone. They don't want what they perceive as coastal values forced upon their kids in school.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    What values would those be?
    - anonfornoreason 5y ago
      Classics liberal here, recently moved out of west coast city to west coast rural area in large part due to critical race theory and fairly radical trans activism. Couldn’t stomache the current school curriculum around both topics.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Is this suggesting we could actually live without Facebook, Google and Twitter. Many of us did that for many years of our lives. At the time, I never anticipated with the internet and eventually the web is that people who had never experienced life without it could so easily be caused to lose sight of what is possible, in favor of the mess we have today. The biggest impediment I see to positive change is that younger generations are being indoctrinated into a world where "tech" companies, intermediaries supported by advertising, are perceived as an essential part of using the internet. This is of course patently false. But these companies are ultimately surveilling and controlling the dialogue. After all, internet subscribers use these "tech" company intermediaries to communicate. Before advertising took over the internet, the inter-network's user base was relatively small. Folks who used the internet recreationally during that time were likely to be technically minded people who enjoyed computers, the type of people many of which who are working with advertising supported "tech" companies today. Few of them are going to portray an advertising-free internet as a viable option. Their livelihoods today depend on advertising. Supporting Big Tech is their "work". Anyway, it is good to see at least one commenter can contemplate a better course for the future. It is possible to communicate and share over the internet without the use of Big Tech. However, as long as advertising-supprted "tech" companies sit between users, operating as intermediaries, that truth will keep getting buried deeper with every new generation.
threatofrain 5y ago
Are you talking about immigrant Latinos, who constitute the supermajority of the farm and meat production labor you're talking about? Yes, I can totally see how they feel left out of the American political process; sometimes they are even called "illegals"! And the families who own farms capture the lion's share of the fruits of labor!
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  You should make friends with some of those immigrant Latinos and ask them which is more important: a stable, reliable food supply, or faster file retrieval for twitter videos.
reddog 5y ago
Easy choice. I'd pick food, lumber, minerals, manufacturing and energy every time over iFart apps, collateralized debt instruments, oxycontin and Disney movies. And the idea that us smart people should just outsource all that physical labor stuff to 3rd-world mouth breathers may work for the moment, but just wait until there is a crisis or war.
AshWolfy 5y ago
If me and my coworkers stopped working, significant parts of the countries education system and essential services would stop working. I make 16 dollars an hour.

hackyhacky 5y ago

Sounds like someone's been watching a bit too much Fox Propaganda. Farms are already subsidized by the government. Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. Who do you think pays for those subsidies, and who pays for the tariffs? Yeah, the "coastal elites" that you've been trained to hate. In farmers stopped benefiting from the largess of the coast, _they_ would starve to death, and everyone else would have cheaper food.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Just FYI if they starve to death there's no one to plant or harvest the food. Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.
- hackyhacky 5y ago
  Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. 1. In this hypothetical situation, the cheaper food comes from abroad, now that there are no import tariffs. 2. I never said subsidies aren't necessary: I don't know how you can infer that point from what I wrote. I said that subsidies exist to protect American farmers, so American farmers should stop complaining about those who fund them. American farming is as profitable as it is now precisely due to those subsidies.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    I think you need to read up on why the subsidies were started in the first place because you're obviously clueless. The rest of your argument is laden with all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Subsidies are given for things like food because if a society doesn't of have food it's a really bad thing so the government props up the industry in bad times (in this case during the Great Depression) and we don't starve. It's not an altruistic handout, it's way of keeping you from starving to death genius. The fact that you think it's a generous handout from the "elites" and government indicates that you think it's unnecessary which means the farmers are profitable on their own and your entire asinine "hypothetical" comment about them starving to death without it gets thrown out the window. The subsidies cannot be both necessary and considered a generous handout from the coastal elites. Pick one. We import about 15% of our food supply right now. Good luck making up the other 85% with cheaper imports. Relying on external food supplies is a massive security risk and disadvantage as well.
    - light_hue_1 5y ago
      Yeah, you should definitely read up on how farming subsidies came about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_policy_of_the_Uni... Food got so stupidly cheap it makes no sense to grow it in the US anymore. So farmers demanded that people in cities pay for their lifestyles out of our taxes. And then they go around being entitled about it. I've had enough of farm welfare queens. Get farmers off of welfare and let us import food from places that can grow it competitively. If we can't make up the other 85% from somewhere else, that's great, then US farmers will show that they can grow food at a reasonable place without welfare. These hateful people that survive on the welfare handouts from cityfolk and then turn around and vote for Republican idiots like Trump have gone too far. Time to cut them off.
      - arrosenberg 5y ago
        Even though I understand your outrage, it's a terrible idea to move our food chain abroad instead of subsidizing farmers. That's a huge national security risk. It would be better if the subsidies were limited to smallholders on ~100 acres or less, which would resolve the rural depression issue.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  By “they” are you talking about the enormous masses of uneducated immigrant workers, frequently derided as illegals, who work in the dirt on the farms and meat production lines of the US? Those that constitute the supermajority of agricultural labor, and who see almost none of the fruits of their labor? Or are we talking about those who Own things?
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Are you arguing that indentured servitude is a good thing? It sounds like you're siding with the employers here.
swordsmith 5y ago
> Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. I think you got these backwards. Subsidies are provided because other countries imposes tariffs on US farm products.

TracePearson 5y ago

Because thats the divide? Silicon Valley vs family farms. Give me a break...

pchristensen 5y ago

To take this view you've shared charitably, what would "Those people in the middle of the country" who keep up from starving want in order to be satisfied with ... life? America? whatever bothers them about the current arrangement?

thepasswordis 5y ago
To be clear: these aren't my views. I live on the Coast, and probably work at the same company some of you guys work at. I just also happen to have close friends who live outside of the bubble we all inhabit. They think that they want to be left alone. They don't want what they perceive as coastal values forced upon their kids in school.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  What values would those be?
  - anonfornoreason 5y ago
    Classics liberal here, recently moved out of west coast city to west coast rural area in large part due to critical race theory and fairly radical trans activism. Couldn’t stomache the current school curriculum around both topics.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

Is this suggesting we could actually live without Facebook, Google and Twitter. Many of us did that for many years of our lives. At the time, I never anticipated with the internet and eventually the web is that people who had never experienced life without it could so easily be caused to lose sight of what is possible, in favor of the mess we have today. The biggest impediment I see to positive change is that younger generations are being indoctrinated into a world where "tech" companies, intermediaries supported by advertising, are perceived as an essential part of using the internet. This is of course patently false. But these companies are ultimately surveilling and controlling the dialogue. After all, internet subscribers use these "tech" company intermediaries to communicate. Before advertising took over the internet, the inter-network's user base was relatively small. Folks who used the internet recreationally during that time were likely to be technically minded people who enjoyed computers, the type of people many of which who are working with advertising supported "tech" companies today. Few of them are going to portray an advertising-free internet as a viable option. Their livelihoods today depend on advertising. Supporting Big Tech is their "work". Anyway, it is good to see at least one commenter can contemplate a better course for the future. It is possible to communicate and share over the internet without the use of Big Tech. However, as long as advertising-supprted "tech" companies sit between users, operating as intermediaries, that truth will keep getting buried deeper with every new generation.

threatofrain 5y ago

Are you talking about immigrant Latinos, who constitute the supermajority of the farm and meat production labor you're talking about? Yes, I can totally see how they feel left out of the American political process; sometimes they are even called "illegals"! And the families who own farms capture the lion's share of the fruits of labor!

thepasswordis 5y ago
You should make friends with some of those immigrant Latinos and ask them which is more important: a stable, reliable food supply, or faster file retrieval for twitter videos.

reddog 5y ago

Easy choice. I'd pick food, lumber, minerals, manufacturing and energy every time over iFart apps, collateralized debt instruments, oxycontin and Disney movies. And the idea that us smart people should just outsource all that physical labor stuff to 3rd-world mouth breathers may work for the moment, but just wait until there is a crisis or war.

AshWolfy 5y ago

If me and my coworkers stopped working, significant parts of the countries education system and essential services would stop working. I make 16 dollars an hour.