this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
501 points (98.3% liked)

Work Reform

9991 readers
150 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 129 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Just for context, if you made 100k a year, an extremely enviable salary, and saved every penny somehow, you'd be a billionaire in exactly TEN THOUSAND YEARS.

No one can earn a billion dollars through honest labor and the sweat of their brow. It must be exploited out of others. It must be stolen. You cannot possess a billion dollars and be a decent human being. For any good you do, you can't approach the harm you've already inflicted upon others in the name of insatiable greed.

Oh I'm sorry, they've used their wealth to warp the culture and language to their benefit, so greed doesn't exist anymore. I meant "rational self-interest." also we have always been at war with Eurasia.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 31 points 1 year ago

I work 7 days a week and my wife works full time to get that $100k/year and it took us years to get where we are in our careers. $1million in assets is still so far away. It's such an incredible amount of money and Zuckerberg and friends have thousands of times that much money. It's just so crazy to think about.

[–] June@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

100k isn’t that much in many regions these days. Its enough to get by but hardly enough to save to buy a house in the Seattle region.

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

They've been getting away with it for centuries. Would you like to know more?

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

🤔 I don't necessarily believe that. An independent creator of a blockbuster franchise could in principle become a billionaire ethically. Like J.K. Rowling; she's estimated to have upwards of a $1.2 billion net worth. (say what you will about her) (I don't like her either but facts are facts)

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You're forgetting that it's not like we go to Rowling's house to get her books, or even download the manuscript P2P from her personal server.

Someone's exploited labor printed the folio, bound it, packed it, shipped it, stocked it, advertised it, sold it to you and put it into a bag...

And more, cut down the trees to make the paper, mixed the ink, delivered the reams and the vats to the factory...

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But it's not the author exploiting publishing companies. It's the execs of those companies exploiting their own workers. The publishing companies make excellent money (and same for paper creators, etc). Just it disproportionately goes to execs and possibly shareholders, not workers.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

of course you can slice it any way you like. I'm not saying no one should be an author, but I am saying billionaires aren't made without exploitation somewhere

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And here's the problem I have with that: not all labor is exploitative. No matter what economy we have, there would still be laborers printing the book, binding it, cutting down the trees and making the paper, etc.

Even if they're not making an even split of company profits, some worker somewhere is happy with what they're getting.

And regardless of economy, some worker will be unhappy working somewhere, feel they're not getting their fair share, etc.

That doesn't change simply because we switch from capitalism to some other system.

The only fair way for that book to be made from the implications given is if all of the labor is automated, but at the end of the day a human being would have to do some work somewhere no matter how many levels of automation redundancy you have, so how is he not implying being expected to do anything is the problem, and using the blatant shitty behavior of the rich as a smokescreen for that?

We could live in a Jetsonian paradise where all he'd have to do is push a few buttons once a day and he'd still complain.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have done things that are hard work for less compensation than it deserves and been happy to give it freely (ie charity, volunteering), but that doesn't mean we can't examine the power structure, even if the plurality of people are happy inside it.

I know. That's what I'm doing, critically examining these claims people keep making. I really don't have a stake in the game either way.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You forget the impact of compound interest. If you invested 1 dollar at 1% interest, you would have a billion dollars in just over 2000 years. So these comparisons based on income are not useful.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you invested money at 1% interest, you would lose money due to inflation.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Real interest, after inflation.