2 ms·
Dog chefs might disagree. :) There are million lot of people (all the way down the food chain) that benefit from what you call "frivolous". Indeed there are w
by bruce511 3y ago
Dog chefs might disagree. :)
There are million lot of people (all the way down the food chain) that benefit from what you call "frivolous".
Indeed there are whole industries that could be categorised as "frivolous" depending on your point of view.
Flowers for example. Loads of people are employed growing, transporting, storing, selling, arranging them, yet nevertheless we have them, and people buy them.
Is me buying flowers any different to a billionaire buying a yacht?
- Epa095 3y agoThink about money as voting power for what the collective production force does. You buying flowers is a tiny bit of vote for someone making flowers, giving you happiness. Someone buying a dog chef is a significant vote (enough for a whole worker) for... two happy dogs? I don't think about employment as a 'gift' from the ones employing. The dog chef could, and would, have done something else if they did not cater to a couple of dogs. The billionaire gets to make another human waste their production because they have such immense voting power with all their money. And yes, the dog-chef might be happy, or maybe they are just a wage-slave doing what they can to survive.