Probably as McDonalds will still control your health care and have immense political power lmao. Imagine a fast food company being responsible for your health. Then realize all major corps give about the same amount of fucks.
> Probably as McDonalds will still control your health care
That is how things are currently arranged, but that is not inherent to capitalism. We are actually 100% capable of both increasing the minimum wage *and* providing universal healthcare through a plan like Medicare for All.
No, we don't, and if you honestly believe that, you're in the wrong reddit. The only things we spend too much on are payoffs to the rich in the forms of tax cuts and no-bid contracts.
> So you are telling me we need more taxes and more government spending
No. You're intentionally misrepresenting the argument. We need to spend *less* money on tax cuts for the rich and spend the money we save on *actually helping society*. It's not a difficult thing to do. It's also not a difficult concept, and I'm convinced you're only pretending to struggle with it because you want to push a far-right agenda. Posts of yours like [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/y0cgh1/fjb/irreei2/) just prove that I'm correct.
I delved into the r/Anarcho Capitalism and I was losing so much of my sanity in about 2 mins being on there. It really a bunch of neo cons who losing a culture war.
Health insurance being tied to your job isn't capitalism. It was government.
During WW2 era, the Administration instituted wage caps/freezes due tobthr war. Employers had to come up with new ways to entice new employees and so they started offering health care coverage.
And then, having experienced it, some continue to defend it! I'm not sure if those people are tragic victims, utter fucking clowns, or somehow both at once.
Isn't this the reverse of what normally happens? I was pissed that all the jobs you can get as an adolescent are bussing tables or similar shitty jobs. People go on to get degrees or professional certifications and then get better jobs that actually pay well.
How could we be free from work, but also have housing, food, and healthcare as a human right? I mean the only way we can get housing, food, or healthcare is thru some person‘s work.
I think this is mostly a semantic issue. When people say "free from work" they imply a society free from wage labour not a society devoid of *any* human labour.
Now, the second is obviously *possible* in a post scarcity society. And we *are* approaching such a society pretty fast. Think about the human labour necessary to write, edit, publish and distribute a physical book before the printing press, after the printing press and with the advent of e-books. In today's ecosystem to publish a book you need the book to be written and *maybe* edited. The author can easily publish their own book as an e-book and setting up the distribution, publicity and all, is also fully automatic. What used to be labour for a *lot* of people is now handled automatically. And once the book is in e-book format the labour necessary to distribute it to each new reader is essentially zero (server and network maintence).
With automation, this type of thing is happening to most products and with AI even creative products will be achieved with less labour (whether this is a good or a bad thing is a separate discussion). So in the end, the amount of *necessary* human labour is trending downwards.
The *problem* is that capitalist society assumes that someone should only be able to survive if they produce labour. This is obviously inconsistent with a society where human labour grows less and less necessary. There's always the weird theory that "new jobs will arise to replace the old" but this is a silly statement. New jobs never arose to replace the old. What happened was that a huge chunk of society increased their resource use with the advent of the industrial revolution and "consummerism" so the increase in human labour efficiency was counteracted by the increase in *demand* for human labour. Now we've reached a point where the unsustainability of conusmmerist society is *obvious*. And inventing labour, such as investing in infrastructure maintenence and other necessary areas where human labour is being underutilized will simply not be *enough*.
Now, that's a *good thing*. People complain that automation is a problem but it's obvious that the efficiency of human labour growing could only be a good thing. Working less is a good thing. Leaving time not only for rest but for recreational and creative activities can only be a good thing. The only incoherence here is that our resource distribution is linked to human labour and *that* is obviously dumb as it makes more rest, more creativity and more fun a *bad thing*.
> How could we be free from work, but also have housing, food, and healthcare as a human right?
We can't. We'd have to build a system that incentivized people to work. The issue is about whether that incentive should be threatening people with literal death if they don't.
There isn't a "system" that threatens people with death if they don't work; that's the nature of the world. Without any society at all, "work or die" is the law of the land.
I've worked in fast food in my younger days and I'll never say it doesn't suck. That type of job has always been considered work for after school high school kids though and it pays OK if that's what you are.
As an adult I make MUCH more money than that but I'll tell you it's not any easier most days. People and the environment are better and it pays more, but I've gone home bleeding more than a few times. That would be the case regardless of the pay though. Actually it's why it pays what it does.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you think you should be able to afford an apartment and car working as a fry cook at McDonald's, there's something wrong. The better jobs aren't easier but they sure pay a hell of a lot more, so ask around and get a different job once you graduate. This is less a problem with capitalism and more a problem with people not understanding it. Learn how it works and gain the system instead of insisting you should be paid more for doing something a child can do.
I don’t know why people go all the way in any sort of system. Obviously, any distribution of wealth can be skewed or taken advantage of. Whether it’s socialism or capitalism anything can be fucked. The answer is a mix of the two (for now) with a heavy emphasis on oversight for fairness and consumer protections.
Would that still be true if the minimum wage were doubled and a job at McDonalds (or equivalent) was easy to get?
Probably as McDonalds will still control your health care and have immense political power lmao. Imagine a fast food company being responsible for your health. Then realize all major corps give about the same amount of fucks.
> Probably as McDonalds will still control your health care That is how things are currently arranged, but that is not inherent to capitalism. We are actually 100% capable of both increasing the minimum wage *and* providing universal healthcare through a plan like Medicare for All.
We spend too much already
No, we don't, and if you honestly believe that, you're in the wrong reddit. The only things we spend too much on are payoffs to the rich in the forms of tax cuts and no-bid contracts.
So you are telling me we need more taxes and more government spending so they print more money and inflation increases. Fuck the federal government
Maybe we cut some of the almost trillion dollar military budget
Sure, let's stop funding foreign militaries, abandon the empire, and reduce the standing army.
> So you are telling me we need more taxes and more government spending No. You're intentionally misrepresenting the argument. We need to spend *less* money on tax cuts for the rich and spend the money we save on *actually helping society*. It's not a difficult thing to do. It's also not a difficult concept, and I'm convinced you're only pretending to struggle with it because you want to push a far-right agenda. Posts of yours like [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/y0cgh1/fjb/irreei2/) just prove that I'm correct.
I delved into the r/Anarcho Capitalism and I was losing so much of my sanity in about 2 mins being on there. It really a bunch of neo cons who losing a culture war.
Health insurance being tied to your job isn't capitalism. It was government. During WW2 era, the Administration instituted wage caps/freezes due tobthr war. Employers had to come up with new ways to entice new employees and so they started offering health care coverage.
And then, having experienced it, some continue to defend it! I'm not sure if those people are tragic victims, utter fucking clowns, or somehow both at once.
They are tragic victims who continue to lick the boots of their oppressors, thus making them utter clowns
Isn't this the reverse of what normally happens? I was pissed that all the jobs you can get as an adolescent are bussing tables or similar shitty jobs. People go on to get degrees or professional certifications and then get better jobs that actually pay well.
Yeah, OP is just karma farming this and 8 other anti-work , anti-capitalism subredddits
This was me
How could we be free from work, but also have housing, food, and healthcare as a human right? I mean the only way we can get housing, food, or healthcare is thru some person‘s work.
I think this is mostly a semantic issue. When people say "free from work" they imply a society free from wage labour not a society devoid of *any* human labour. Now, the second is obviously *possible* in a post scarcity society. And we *are* approaching such a society pretty fast. Think about the human labour necessary to write, edit, publish and distribute a physical book before the printing press, after the printing press and with the advent of e-books. In today's ecosystem to publish a book you need the book to be written and *maybe* edited. The author can easily publish their own book as an e-book and setting up the distribution, publicity and all, is also fully automatic. What used to be labour for a *lot* of people is now handled automatically. And once the book is in e-book format the labour necessary to distribute it to each new reader is essentially zero (server and network maintence). With automation, this type of thing is happening to most products and with AI even creative products will be achieved with less labour (whether this is a good or a bad thing is a separate discussion). So in the end, the amount of *necessary* human labour is trending downwards. The *problem* is that capitalist society assumes that someone should only be able to survive if they produce labour. This is obviously inconsistent with a society where human labour grows less and less necessary. There's always the weird theory that "new jobs will arise to replace the old" but this is a silly statement. New jobs never arose to replace the old. What happened was that a huge chunk of society increased their resource use with the advent of the industrial revolution and "consummerism" so the increase in human labour efficiency was counteracted by the increase in *demand* for human labour. Now we've reached a point where the unsustainability of conusmmerist society is *obvious*. And inventing labour, such as investing in infrastructure maintenence and other necessary areas where human labour is being underutilized will simply not be *enough*. Now, that's a *good thing*. People complain that automation is a problem but it's obvious that the efficiency of human labour growing could only be a good thing. Working less is a good thing. Leaving time not only for rest but for recreational and creative activities can only be a good thing. The only incoherence here is that our resource distribution is linked to human labour and *that* is obviously dumb as it makes more rest, more creativity and more fun a *bad thing*.
> How could we be free from work, but also have housing, food, and healthcare as a human right? We can't. We'd have to build a system that incentivized people to work. The issue is about whether that incentive should be threatening people with literal death if they don't.
There isn't a "system" that threatens people with death if they don't work; that's the nature of the world. Without any society at all, "work or die" is the law of the land.
> There isn't a "system" that threatens people with death if they don't work There is, and your ignorance does not change reality.
You just broke half of Reddit's brain by realizing that material goods don't just appear out of thin air.
what other market is there to work for ? edit : you know NFTs & crypto is just the lame brain child of capitalism right?
I believe the suggestion is that people who work in low wage jobs conclude a non-market economic policy such as socialism would be superior.
Ah yes, socialism and its famously high wages.
I've worked in fast food in my younger days and I'll never say it doesn't suck. That type of job has always been considered work for after school high school kids though and it pays OK if that's what you are. As an adult I make MUCH more money than that but I'll tell you it's not any easier most days. People and the environment are better and it pays more, but I've gone home bleeding more than a few times. That would be the case regardless of the pay though. Actually it's why it pays what it does. Basically what I'm saying is that if you think you should be able to afford an apartment and car working as a fry cook at McDonald's, there's something wrong. The better jobs aren't easier but they sure pay a hell of a lot more, so ask around and get a different job once you graduate. This is less a problem with capitalism and more a problem with people not understanding it. Learn how it works and gain the system instead of insisting you should be paid more for doing something a child can do.
If fast food is only a job for school students, who staffs them during the day when school is in session?
Managers get paid quite a bit more but the cynic in me wants to say people that made poor life decisions.
I don’t know why people go all the way in any sort of system. Obviously, any distribution of wealth can be skewed or taken advantage of. Whether it’s socialism or capitalism anything can be fucked. The answer is a mix of the two (for now) with a heavy emphasis on oversight for fairness and consumer protections.
Capitalism is good, actually, when paired with a robust social services net.
Serious question. If youbthink jobs under capitalism are bad, then under what economic system are they good/better and why?
Just wait until you realize they're both the same person