4 ms·

Because the worker doesn't have the ability to be able to protect his interests when he is just keeping his money. The rich are able to keep larger portions of

Because the worker doesn't have the ability to be able to protect his interests when he is just keeping his money. The rich are able to keep larger portions of their income, and then eventually leverage that to be patrons of political power and set the rules for themselves. You are also not in the same category as the super rich, so theres an unspoken blurring of the terms here as well - theres no sense in considering a normal perso, or a rich person against someone like Bezos, who has the wealth of several countries.

MichaelZuo 1y ago
This seems like a tautology? By definition, the median person only has a mediocre ability to “protect his interests”.
wisty 1y ago
Consumption matters not wealth. Wealth is just paper ownership, it's consumption that is wasting scarce resources. And the super rich simply can't consume that much. Bezons isn't eating a thousand times as much as a millionaire. If his kids spend their lives being unproductive, it's only a tiny handful of wastrels. Mansions, yachts and large private airplanes might be a bit of a resource sink I guess .... but how does paper wealth cost society real resources? It's like being made at someone with a rare monkey gif
- intended 1y ago
  Sure, if you believe that you should most definitely do your best to consume less. Matter of fact, this is what people around the world are doing and reducing one of the highest sources of future consumption - children. I think it was a world bank report that came out recently that showed that people globally are having fewer children, with costs being the most commonly provided reason. So, if you believe consumption is the issue, rejoice! It seems to be a problem that will resolve itself in a generation or two.
  - wisty 1y ago
    I'm more talking about fairness than environmental issues, but it still is valid to say CO2 has more or less peaked and will decline faster due to population declined.
- TFYS 1y ago
  Wealth is power. Power matters, as with it you're in a position to decide what can be consumed to begin with. People that control wealth control what policies get implemented, which projects get funded, etc. They will not support policies that reduce consumption because it would reduce their income and power. They will support projects that waste resources if it makes them more money and power.
  - SR2Z 1y ago
    Consumers also don't support policies that reduce consumption because that would reduce their quality of life. Consumers happily take flights, hot showers, run their AC, etc. if it makes their lives easier. A billionaire consumes less of their income and invests more than a regular person. Wealth is power, but virtually everyone would spend on the same things.
    - TFYS 1y ago
      Making a choice to consume as an individual is different from supporting a policy that would affect everyone. Taxing consumption and fossil fuels does have a lot of support. People are willing to reduce their quality of life if everyone else does as well, but their not willing to make the choice not to consume as an individual if everyone else can continue to do so. A billionaire has the power to affect policy in a way that the average consumer doesn't, and is more likely to use that influence to make themselves richer than to push policies that benefit everyone.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  Bezo's wealth come on the back of unsafe products flooding the market. On the back of Amazon warehouse workers having to see in-house doctors for repetitive stress injury and getting biased opinions in order to protect the company. Amazon warehouse workers are treated so badly (to build Bezo's wealth) and paid so little (to build Bezo's wealth) that Amazon has to consider running out of people willing to work their facilities. Velocity of money matters. Builds. Bezo's sucking up wealth instead of paying workers retards the economy. There is a reason Smog the Dragon is 'villian' prototype told by humans since forever. I get modern American conservatives think it is a model to emulate and is actually the highest for of being, but it's not.
ajsnigrutin 1y ago
The debate was if workers get taxed, should that money go to artists and op above me said that that money now went to rich people. I advocated for workers to keep more of their money. It's not about protecting interests, leverages, political powers, etc., it's just more net pay at the same gross pay for the workers. Why choose where the workers money goes, if they can keep more, and just pay the artists by visitng concerts or buying their music? Why does government have to be involved?
- intended 1y ago
  >why does government have to be involved. >Taxes If you have taxes, you already have a system which redistributes wealth to places that society requires, so government is already involved. So the question becomes how the government is involved. In any system with competing interests, a no holds barred contest favors the most willing to maximize their advantages. Wealth even concentrates even in video games. To ensure a system where there is some degree of fairness between humans, to ensure that your position in society is not locked in to your inherited fate, or even to ensure that fewer taxes are taken from workers, you need the power of a shared government. Also: The American position is usually to have no trust in government, which is encouraged by having a right wing media sphere that is dedicated to inserting as much distrust into the system as possible. So by default in an American context, it’s hard to conceive of a government with high trust, and the default is to never give money to it.
  - ajsnigrutin 1y ago
    I was born in a socialist country, with red stars, a dictator, government owned everything, and smuggling jeans and coffee across the border. I'm still here, but the country doesn't exist anymore. Now, our parts over here makes us a small and pretty OK doing EU country with a relatively nice living standard. I don't trust the government. Why? Because they can't properly operate with the money they're given by us, the workers. Same goes for many recepients of that money, especially the ones outside of "social help". Yes, we fund art, we have public tenders, artists apply, they get a few thousand euros, produce something to fit "the current political theme" (eg. everybody is talking about ecology, let's make a performance where they throw trash at eachother), 10, 20, maybe 30 people see that, mostly family and local homeless people coming for the free wine, papers are stamped, checkmarks on all the right places, and money has exchanged hands. I would much rather live in a system where workers get to keep that money and spend it for art in whatever way they want. Even in a "semi-mandated" way (eg. tax benefits if you spend X euros yearly on art stuff). And that's just peanuts compared to other stuff our government spends money on, our healthcare system is beyond broken, forcing you to pay government healthcare insurance (deducted by your employer, at 14.92% of your gross pay + 37.5eur extra, around 5keur yearly per average worker) but when you need an ultrasound for possible kidney stones... well, the waiting times are 6 month, but if you pay out of your pocket for a private clinic, somewhere around 100 eur, you can get one today or at the latest, tomorrow. If you're sick for up to 28 days, your employer covers your sick pay (80% of normal pay), if longer than 28 days, the government pays for that... sounds ok, right? We have people on sick leave for two, three years (24-36months * 80% of ~2500eur average monthly gross) waiting for eg. a knee surgery, that costs 3-5k eur at a private clinic, even less at a government one, but because our government insurance decided to pay only for 20 such surgeries yearly, and the waiting line is 70 people, you're screwed. So yeah, I don't trust the government. I trust an average homeless alcoholic more with money management, especially because he's operating with his own money for his own benefit, and he'll make sure to get the most booze for whatever he managed to gather and not spend more than he has.

MichaelZuo 1y ago

This seems like a tautology? By definition, the median person only has a mediocre ability to “protect his interests”.

wisty 1y ago

Consumption matters not wealth. Wealth is just paper ownership, it's consumption that is wasting scarce resources. And the super rich simply can't consume that much. Bezons isn't eating a thousand times as much as a millionaire. If his kids spend their lives being unproductive, it's only a tiny handful of wastrels. Mansions, yachts and large private airplanes might be a bit of a resource sink I guess .... but how does paper wealth cost society real resources? It's like being made at someone with a rare monkey gif

intended 1y ago
Sure, if you believe that you should most definitely do your best to consume less. Matter of fact, this is what people around the world are doing and reducing one of the highest sources of future consumption - children. I think it was a world bank report that came out recently that showed that people globally are having fewer children, with costs being the most commonly provided reason. So, if you believe consumption is the issue, rejoice! It seems to be a problem that will resolve itself in a generation or two.
- wisty 1y ago
  I'm more talking about fairness than environmental issues, but it still is valid to say CO2 has more or less peaked and will decline faster due to population declined.
TFYS 1y ago
Wealth is power. Power matters, as with it you're in a position to decide what can be consumed to begin with. People that control wealth control what policies get implemented, which projects get funded, etc. They will not support policies that reduce consumption because it would reduce their income and power. They will support projects that waste resources if it makes them more money and power.
- SR2Z 1y ago
  Consumers also don't support policies that reduce consumption because that would reduce their quality of life. Consumers happily take flights, hot showers, run their AC, etc. if it makes their lives easier. A billionaire consumes less of their income and invests more than a regular person. Wealth is power, but virtually everyone would spend on the same things.
  - TFYS 1y ago
    Making a choice to consume as an individual is different from supporting a policy that would affect everyone. Taxing consumption and fossil fuels does have a lot of support. People are willing to reduce their quality of life if everyone else does as well, but their not willing to make the choice not to consume as an individual if everyone else can continue to do so. A billionaire has the power to affect policy in a way that the average consumer doesn't, and is more likely to use that influence to make themselves richer than to push policies that benefit everyone.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Bezo's wealth come on the back of unsafe products flooding the market. On the back of Amazon warehouse workers having to see in-house doctors for repetitive stress injury and getting biased opinions in order to protect the company. Amazon warehouse workers are treated so badly (to build Bezo's wealth) and paid so little (to build Bezo's wealth) that Amazon has to consider running out of people willing to work their facilities. Velocity of money matters. Builds. Bezo's sucking up wealth instead of paying workers retards the economy. There is a reason Smog the Dragon is 'villian' prototype told by humans since forever. I get modern American conservatives think it is a model to emulate and is actually the highest for of being, but it's not.

ajsnigrutin 1y ago

The debate was if workers get taxed, should that money go to artists and op above me said that that money now went to rich people. I advocated for workers to keep more of their money. It's not about protecting interests, leverages, political powers, etc., it's just more net pay at the same gross pay for the workers. Why choose where the workers money goes, if they can keep more, and just pay the artists by visitng concerts or buying their music? Why does government have to be involved?

intended 1y ago
>why does government have to be involved. >Taxes If you have taxes, you already have a system which redistributes wealth to places that society requires, so government is already involved. So the question becomes how the government is involved. In any system with competing interests, a no holds barred contest favors the most willing to maximize their advantages. Wealth even concentrates even in video games. To ensure a system where there is some degree of fairness between humans, to ensure that your position in society is not locked in to your inherited fate, or even to ensure that fewer taxes are taken from workers, you need the power of a shared government. Also: The American position is usually to have no trust in government, which is encouraged by having a right wing media sphere that is dedicated to inserting as much distrust into the system as possible. So by default in an American context, it’s hard to conceive of a government with high trust, and the default is to never give money to it.
- ajsnigrutin 1y ago
  I was born in a socialist country, with red stars, a dictator, government owned everything, and smuggling jeans and coffee across the border. I'm still here, but the country doesn't exist anymore. Now, our parts over here makes us a small and pretty OK doing EU country with a relatively nice living standard. I don't trust the government. Why? Because they can't properly operate with the money they're given by us, the workers. Same goes for many recepients of that money, especially the ones outside of "social help". Yes, we fund art, we have public tenders, artists apply, they get a few thousand euros, produce something to fit "the current political theme" (eg. everybody is talking about ecology, let's make a performance where they throw trash at eachother), 10, 20, maybe 30 people see that, mostly family and local homeless people coming for the free wine, papers are stamped, checkmarks on all the right places, and money has exchanged hands. I would much rather live in a system where workers get to keep that money and spend it for art in whatever way they want. Even in a "semi-mandated" way (eg. tax benefits if you spend X euros yearly on art stuff). And that's just peanuts compared to other stuff our government spends money on, our healthcare system is beyond broken, forcing you to pay government healthcare insurance (deducted by your employer, at 14.92% of your gross pay + 37.5eur extra, around 5keur yearly per average worker) but when you need an ultrasound for possible kidney stones... well, the waiting times are 6 month, but if you pay out of your pocket for a private clinic, somewhere around 100 eur, you can get one today or at the latest, tomorrow. If you're sick for up to 28 days, your employer covers your sick pay (80% of normal pay), if longer than 28 days, the government pays for that... sounds ok, right? We have people on sick leave for two, three years (24-36months * 80% of ~2500eur average monthly gross) waiting for eg. a knee surgery, that costs 3-5k eur at a private clinic, even less at a government one, but because our government insurance decided to pay only for 20 such surgeries yearly, and the waiting line is 70 people, you're screwed. So yeah, I don't trust the government. I trust an average homeless alcoholic more with money management, especially because he's operating with his own money for his own benefit, and he'll make sure to get the most booze for whatever he managed to gather and not spend more than he has.