3 ms·
Rather, “capitalist elites who benefit from precarious workers”, is not neutral or objective. That’s an editorialized and oversimplified view of what are the m
by cplusplusfellow 5y ago
Rather, “capitalist elites who benefit from precarious workers”, is not neutral or objective. That’s an editorialized and oversimplified view of what are the motivations and needs of people actually creating the jobs in the first place.
There are likely more unproductive (deliberately) workers on balance who are siphoning wages from companies than there are “capitalist elites” who prey on their workers needing a job.
The entire article and thread of comments demonstrate that people would prefer to stay at home and be paid than to work and be paid. It’s not hard to imagine why and see the negative downsides unless you’re one of the people trying to justify being paid to stay at home.
- DarylZero 5y ago> That’s an editorialized and oversimplified view of what are the motivations and needs I literally did not say anything about "motivations and needs." I referred to "benefit," as in their interests. Interests, motivations, and needs aren't all the same thing. You should know this and recognize it all by yourself! I'm really not interested in refuting your sociopathic little distortions. > people actually creating the jobs ROFL
- cplusplusfellow 5y agoFYSA: one's "interests" are very, very similar to ones "motivations and needs." But I agree to walk away. If you ROFL at the prospect of someone who is legitimately creating jobs being an interested party in the discussion of our economic structure, it's probably not worth the typing energy to debate with you.
- DarylZero 5y agoAccurate neutral objective description of economic interests... distorted by you into some offensive pejorative about "motivations". Your dishonesty is disgusting.