3 ms·
> Just passively consume and spend. Let other people keep the world from falling apart around you. One would presumably need to be creating something of value
by unmole 3y ago
> Just passively consume and spend. Let other people keep the world from falling apart around you.
One would presumably need to be creating something of value to be able to afford the consumption. So, they are likely the very people who are keeping the world from falling apart. The professional activists on the other hand...
- sandworm101 3y ago>> need to be creating something of value to be able to afford the consumption. Why? A very large percentage of income is "passive". Even Marge Simpson has a trust fund setup by her relatives. And mutual funds, family income, real estate appreciation, pensions ... I'd say that there are large numbers of relatively wealthy people don't actually have jobs that require work. Their role in society is to consume, and occasionally vote.
- unmole 3y ago> Why? A very large percentage of income is "passive". Define very large. And isn't the fraction of people who live off passive income the more relevant measure? > Even Marge Simpson I'm sorry, your example is a cartoon character? > large numbers of relatively wealthy people don't actually have jobs that require work. Again, define large.
- geodel 3y agoI guess, they will come up with large enough to fill a town hall perhaps.
- sandworm101 3y agoThe Simpsons were designed as the typical american family in every way. When the writers invented them having a family trust they were making a statement that such trusts are commonplace and normal in American society, at least normal enough that the audience would understand the concept. Thirty years ago very few average people would have even known the word. Things have changes since the series started.
- unmole 3y agoTalk is cheap. Show me the maths. How many Americans live off trust funds?
- mint2 3y agoSurveys show that vast number of people are working what they believe to be pointless jobs - and yes it makes them unhappy. So no, people do not need to be creating value to be paid. And of those who think their jobs aren’t pointless, still most of tasks can be pointless. My job isn’t pointless as a whole, but still about 60% is spent on stuff that should not be needed and helps no one, especially not the business. Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- unmole 3y ago> Surveys show that vast number of people are working what they believe to be pointless jobs Are survey conductors included in those stats? > So no, people do not need to be creating value to be paid. The fact that someone thinks their job is pointless done;t mean it isn't providing value to someone else. > on stuff that should not be needed and helps no one, Welcome to the real world where things are sub-optimal and people expend significant effort to keep things from falling apart. > Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important. > Sounds like it is providing value to someone then?
- mint2 3y ago“ >> Ok technically it helps one incompetent person in the cto’s office who rose beyond their competency level feel important. > Sounds like it is providing value to someone then?” That conclusion nicely shows the quality of these rebuttals. According to it, A person in the cto office making utterly pointless work is “adding value” because they feel important while the business is harmed. And yes they make utterly pointless work as in the end it turned out they had spent weeks trying to justify what was actually a restriction imposed by an error they’d made - the wrong role assignment by their team.
- unmole 3y ago