You are arguing based on the assumption that capitalism is the essence of life and nothing can be done without it. That companies are hurt does not have to mean

You are arguing based on the assumption that capitalism is the essence of life and nothing can be done without it. That companies are hurt does not have to mean that society is hurt. Companies are not persons, and if we lived in a fair society everyone would be well-off no matter what imaginary numbers (money and markets) have decided for them today. > But if you take away their sale people forever, you might as well just close down the company. When you say sales people, are you talking about a merchant behind a booth? Or a PR person? The latter should not exist at all in my opinion and is definitely a useless job which does not produce anything useful for society. The social function of marketing is to direct part of the revenue stream in one direction and not another, which is only "useful" (huge quotation marks) in an economy based on private property and competition. In a cooperative economy where as long as there is food people are fed, what matters is how to produce food and maintain infrastructure and heal people, and of course culture/science/education. > Just because we _did_ survive without certain employees for a period of time doesn't make them all useless. The long term impacts are substantial. I agree we cannot study these problems in isolation. However, you are the one not looking at the bigger picture. Another world is possible if we stop following the laws of Capital and State which are not laws of nature. Also, to be fair, many useless jobs kept going: i would have gladly done without cops and bankers and politicians for the lockdowns (and forever) but unfortunately these bloodsucking vampires grew even more virulent. Well I guess that's how species feeding on our misery operate.