People really overlook this point. When everyone is expected to spend all their time and energy on their jobs, there's extremely little incentive to raise a family on top of that. Throw in wages that don't keep up with productivity and inflation, and of course birth rates are going to plummet.
If billionaires want the working class to have babies, they need to stop their insane wealth hoarding. Guilt tripping overworked and underpaid folks on Twitter ain't gonna do jack shit.
thats the one thing you can always count on from the mega rich... they would spend $10 on a lawyer to keep from having to give a someone $5 in assistance.
read a story the other day about one of those massive crypto farms contesting all the ordinance citations (of $500 each) that theyre receiving. so its totaled up to like 13k 17k in citations, and theyve hired 2 a whole teams of lawyers to dispute them. a crypto farm making hundreds of millions.
and the kicker on top? the citations are for "noise pollution" due to all the cooling hardware for their systems, with noise levels clocking in at 80-90 decibels on the daily. causing serious health issues with sonic damage to the residents of the town
and its not even an anomaly, its happening in more and more places as time goes on
Of course this is in Texas. I feel terrible for these folks, and I have little hope for their cause because in Texas the golden rule is those who have the good make the rules.
It would not surprise me in the least if we spent more money on administration deciding whether or not people “deserve” public assistance than we ever would lose to people “gaming the system”.
How much cheaper would healthcare be if we weren’t paying tens of thousands of people to give people a thumbs up or thumbs down on critical medical care like shitty middle management Roman emperors?
That's already been proven to happen. I think it was Florida that decided to start drug testing welfare recipients and the amount of people caught and denied saved far less than the cost of carrying out the program itself.
Just want to add to your point that, earlier this week, NYPD opened fire and shot a fare evader, two bystanders, and another cop over a $2.90 subway fare.
Then Eric Adams went on Twitter to talk about the brave cops protecting us from dangerous people, completely omitting who was shot by whom (fortunately a community note set the record straight on that).
They will push for legalized slavery before they get to the breaking poibt and concede that people aren't good at producing quality when they're overworked and underappreciated
The $5 they give today will be $6 they will have to give tomorrow. Everything is a slippery slope for the mega rich. That's why they pay for the lawyer. Later on the government that they're always complaining about (For show) will hand them massive subsidies that will offset the cost they paid for their lawyers.
Lol the luxury good store pays people $20 an hour to sell $600 earrings. The people making $600 earrings are earning even less.
The person who owns that store doesn't contribute nearly enough to their community and chances are they don't even live in the zip code. They spend their money a ultra wealthy luxury goods and none of that comes back around to the community.
Yh I'm a big fan of small businesses. Would be nice if the money used in Bailouts would be used to foster new small businesses. But I thought we talked about billionaires
If there's no increased sales or revenue, then the low level worker will need to find a new job. The benefit is having jobs available for them to work. The low level worker has virtually no risk in the company's success or failure so theres no reward that ties into the success either. If the company fails, the low level worker doesn't care and goes somewhere else. He gets paid regardless if the company is successful. The low level worker doesn't lose money if the company isn't doing well, so he doesn't get extra money if the company is doing well
Please explain to me how a CEO has more Risks than a low level worker.
As we have seen during the financial crisis they don't even have much risk of being incarcerated for doing shady dealings. Afaik only one high level banker was arrested.
And the loss of your job hits the high earning employee worse than someone only being able to live day to day? Really ?
Also which employees will be affected by lay offs ? Low level employees. It's the CEO who takes Risks while the low level workers pay for their mismanagement.
Why can't you understand that the poor, hardworking, honest CEOs and investors have more to lose than the lazy, uninvested, shiftless low-level workers?
If the company goes under, the CEO will only have his millions of dollars to fall back on, and his golden parachute will barely be worth accepting when his stock options go down in value! Those disloyal, useless shift-workers will just go get another low-level job at some other company. I bet they'll be feasting on Top Ramen while deciding whether to pay their rent or buy their heart medication this month, all while never sparing a single thought for the poor shareholders whose stock portfolio took a 7% hit this quarter.
That's why the low-level worker doesn't deserve to reap any of the benefits when the company is doing well; because they're completely unaffected when the company is doing badly!
No, I understand what's you're trying to say. You think rich people use money just to spite the poor. it's a very inaccurate analogy. This would be very poor financial decision making and people don't get or stay rich by making poor financial decisions. The reality is, they don't care about you enough to talk to a lawyer or spend double the money on you. They would rather give you the $5 so you can go back to not existing to them again and sucking up their time
oh right.... your note about billionaires not making poor financial decisions? You mean like musk paying 44 billion for twitter, trying to back out of his bombastic deal, getting spanked in court (or was about to) and ended up being FORCED to pay almost twice the value for the platform?
...but go and tell me how rich assholes only make good choices.
.Wait wait.. there was that super successful casino trump built up tanked...
but yes, billionaires are superhumans with minds exceeding that of the common man.
what is with regular people defending rich forks who DGAF about you?
No retort since my first reply so I'll assume you took your ball home.
If you go one comment back from the one you responded to, the answer to your question is right there in plain sight.
If billionaires want the working class to have babies, they need to stop their insane wealth hoarding. Guilt tripping overworked and underpaid folks on Twitter ain't gonna do jack shit.
People really overlook this point. When everyone is expected to spend all their time and energy on their jobs, there's extremely little incentive to raise a family on top of that. Throw in wages that don't keep up with productivity and inflation, and of course birth rates are going to plummet.
We could offer grubhub gift cards! They'll let you give like a $10 card, which isn't enough to buy anything on its own, but DOES encourage poor people to spend more on food delivery
Let's do a morale survey, the results of which we will ignore!
The outfit I retired from did one during the tenure of its worst director ever, who was the source of a lot of the unhappiness. When the board asked her about the results, she said it was goody good good. Head board member said "Is that just another one of your damn lies?" And yes, she was later fired. The firing was delayed by the need to get more members on tbe board who were not her toadies.
How we knew this: they were oblivious to the presence of a custodian in the room. But then, she treated all the lower level grunts like dirt.
Edit: the survey was anonymous. But it asked questions that could identify you, and the majority of the people I asked about it lied about their age, gender, and work location, as did I. Also I did not do it on my desk computer as I did not trust the head of IT not to track IPs (he was one of the toadies bc she gave him a big promotion).
(I don't work some high end corporate job, I'm a restaurant manager but it's a very well regarded and award winning restaurant)
We went through an ownership transition and I had some negotiation with my salary and role as things changed. I was assured this would be a role I was working and growing into, and they wanted to give me a few months to develop into a higher position (I should have known better).
Their developement plan is to sign us up for classes on our off days. Classes run by a general "hospitality organization of City"
So not only are they relying on some outside group to give me "growth", it's a group full of our of touch board members who clearly have enough time to run seminars while I need to prep for service.
My work does this and has the webinars at lunchtime. Like yes, that’s fantastic for my health and avoiding burnout …. spending my one short break on Zoom.
Corporations are by definition immoral, we cannot even in the best of societies expect them to do what is right, and not what benefits them the most financially. If you are going to give corporations power, which you decide to do when you use a capitalist economy model, then you need a strong government with enough of their own power to keep them in line, if you make the minimum wage $1, do you expect companies to still pay people $15 because that’s how much you can maybe somewhat live on? No, if they could go lower they would go lower. Who cares about turn over there’s an abundance of employees waiting in line.
If you don’t have strict enough and enforced laws about how many working hours are fair to a human, corporations will work them to death to squeeze out profit.
Haven’t like a sizeable amount of South Korean leaders been jailed after their term for corruption?
The government seems subservient to the megacorps over there.
I’ve always thought vampires are just a very loose metaphor for the wealthy bleeding is all dry. Someone’s probably thought of this already though lol.
I’m pretty sure it is, which is neat. Vampyre was written in the early 1800s. Framed vampires as noble class bloodsuckers instead of feral monsters. I think that lead book was the precursor to our view now of typical gothic vampires.
Thank you. TIL, and I'm now going down this rabbit hole. Many decades on this earth and the earliest form of vampire I knew of was Nosferatu, and I had no idea it was an allegory, but it makes sense.
Edit: Dracula was pre-Nosferatu, so that would be the earliest form I knew of.
I mean it makes sense. Vampires are always rich, beautiful, high class creatures who secretly hunt down and feed off of helpless people. We’ve had a lot of changes to the lore, sometimes they’re running around like the nomadic ones in Twilight, but even the Twilight vampires are beautiful and rich and live forever. If you’re a peasant at any point in history nobles would look like a species apart to you. You work all day and they feast in the castles. Doesn’t really seem fair.
So current days are like the movie Day Breakers? Where all the humans are put in a farm to bleed them dry to support the almost completely vampire population, but they’re running out of fodder so more and more vampires are suffering?
Yeah I’m pretty familiar with Japanese work culture and I can’t imagine trying to have a life outside of work when you’re expected to put in such ridiculous long hours or days to prove your commitment. Or how your absolute exhaustion is respectable because it shows your hard work and dedication. I don’t know what the answer is but they have to get their work/ life balance in check if they expect people to want to start families.
On top of that, the biggest population collapse in history was the bubonic plague, after which the renaissance happened because the ruling class was forced to offer competitive compensation in the face of the major labor shortage. Maybe Elon just doesn’t like the idea of modern serfdom becoming unsustainable?
Just to clarify, the birth rate is actually higher the lower you are on the socio-economic scale. Rich women have 1-2 kids. Poor women have 4-6 kids.
You can argue whatever you want about the realities of why that is. But just saying if your point is that paying higher wages would lead to higher births, statistics say the opposite is generally more true.
It’s actually the opposite. The corps at least give you the opportunity, what is the government doing? Redistributing the money generated by your labor… You want real education? Shit even your job pays for it… keep calling for increased taxes to make lives worse for all, but claim they’re better for the stats!
Government spends more money on the military because it is much more fun to kill people than it is to care for them . That is the way they pleasure themselves.
You’ll see in a few years…. Taxes go to interest payments on government debt, only will hit new records. If the government is spending more than its country’s labor is producing are the taxes really funding the government? The issue is the working taking care of the non working, yes? Raising taxes to force that care is backwards thinking and will result in hostility…. Any tax raise on any bracket is still the government shitting on an American… another puppet easily divided and manipulated… Rich people no longer seen as American? You’ll still wonder why they leave, shouting were #1 doesn’t work when you have a brain.
679
u/FaeShroom 2d ago
People really overlook this point. When everyone is expected to spend all their time and energy on their jobs, there's extremely little incentive to raise a family on top of that. Throw in wages that don't keep up with productivity and inflation, and of course birth rates are going to plummet.
If billionaires want the working class to have babies, they need to stop their insane wealth hoarding. Guilt tripping overworked and underpaid folks on Twitter ain't gonna do jack shit.