Not all rich people are smart, and not all smart people are rich. Seems kind of obvious to me now, but it took me a long time to comprehend this.

I’d prefer no tyranny at all, but if I had to choose, I’d pick the tyranny of corporations because, at least, companies don’t have a monopoly on violence.

As a non-American, I only recognize Donald Trump and Hulk Hogan in this picture. I would pick seat 7. The person in front of me looks innocent, and behind me is a woman, so she probably isn’t too tall and won’t kick my chair. She might even allow me to recline my seat. I don’t know much about Hulk Hogan, but he seems like a cool dude, and I like his mustache. Tell me, did I choose wisely?

Prolly Clojure. He’s heavily on Clojure these days.

They don’t. Piercing jewelry is usually made from robust materials that are inert in normal conditions, like stainless steel, gold, plastics, and sometimes glass or gemstones. So, no, you don’t taste anything, just as you don’t taste a plastic cup, ceramic mug, or stainless steel pot.

I’m laughing out loud at the skeleton picture! He seems happy about his prints! 😂

But what’s an ᗋR𝖢ꔠ?

The question was “Why do you not believe in universal healthcare?” not “Why don’t you like the libertarian movement?” Jeez, guys.

To me, it’s quite the opposite! I feel like Silt Striders are kind of cozy, actually. What can be more comfortable and safe to travel than on the back of a big bug-giraffe? They are sweet, calm, non-aggressive, domesticated creatures.

Isn’t it kinda funny that the “most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet,” yet this article is locked behind a paywall?

Reminds me of this Writing Prompt: https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/comments/uzkunl

Although I don’t agree with “The salaries are higher than supply and demand in equilibrium would dictate,” I believe that your point is overall true. One truly cannot assess whether the price is too high or too low in isolation from the law of supply and demand. The role of the buyer (of any good, including labor) is to purchase as cheaply as possible, and the role of the seller is to sell as high as possible. I’m somewhat saddened that now this negotiation has turned kinda toxic. Companies attempt to play the victim card, claiming “no one wants to work,” while labor responds with mere satire, without directly addressing the problem.

Absolutely, I’m totally with you on this! And obviously, they’re not mutually exclusive. Right now, though, it seems like there’s zero effort being put into the latter option. I’m just feeling a bit frustrated, hence the stronger words and arguments than I probably should be using. My bad if it came off like I was saying these choices can’t coexist.

All of these are examples of the free market colluding under capitalism exactly how you describe that it should be and creating a wealth inequality that ultimately screws workers with no recourse.

All of these are examples of attempts to control billionaires in their field through bureaucracy and law. I’m advocating for a change in strategy. You’re attempting to enforce more rules because it seems like a good idea, and it is… in the short term. But we’ve seen countless times that controlling, forcing, and policing never work! After all, corporations will prevail again if we don’t redirect our energy elsewhere. Instead of focusing on controlling the rich, we should educate the poor. We should offer them choices and options rather than attempting to seize control from the wealthy. All you (and almost everyone else) are doing is repeating, like a mantra, “tax the rich” and providing examples of corporations utilizing options WE provided. I believe that you genuinely want better for all people, but from my perspective, it’s you who advocates for strategies that haven’t worked and will not work, without realizing it. I don’t think so, but I genuinely hope that you (and everyone else here) are right and I’m wrong because it appears that your agenda is gaining popularity, while my opinion is very unpopular. Your “plan” simply has a greater likelihood of being implemented and finding supporters. Because if you’re all wrong… we’re doomed, guys.

Why do we keep focusing on stopping scammers instead of teaching people about scams? I think it’s important for everyone to know their true worth, but just banning scams doesn’t solve much. On the other hand, if people can recognize scams, they won’t fall for them.

I’m reading the answers, and it seems like no one understood the question. 😔

And also https://lemmy.ml/c/fuck_cars

Now you can take that offer to the market and see if there’s anyone willing to work for you at $100 an hour. It’d be great if there’s someone interested! If not, you could think about raising the pay or improving working conditions. If that’s not possible, maybe your business isn’t sustainable, and you might need to consider other options. Whatever you decide, I believe you have choices and can determine what’s best for you on your own. You’re smart enough to make your own decisions without needing someone else to do it for you!

market under capitalism is also more than capable of conspiring to make sure that wages are lower across the board

So, you’re saying the job market tends to favor employers over employees? I’m not entirely sold on that idea. The market works both ways! Workers do have options, like forming unions (as legal entities or just as formal agreements) or negotiating for better wages and conditions. If a job doesn’t pay enough or isn’t fair, you can always look elsewhere or demand more. Plus, if there are people willing to work for less, isn’t it their choice? I’m completely okay with the idea of educating them, trying to persuade them that working for scraps is not okay, but why stop them if they’re okay with it? Why exactly are we stopping employers who can only afford that much, and workers who are willing to work for it, from meeting each other?

Both sides have valid points. If nobody is willing to pay a minimum wage for a job, then that wage isn’t right for that job. Take, for instance, the task of answering phone calls and jotting down information. Let’s say I get 5 to 10 calls daily, spanning from 9 am to 9 pm. I’m not prepared to fork over minimum wage multiplied by 12 for this work, and I doubt you are either. It just doesn’t seem fair compensation. However, if folks are offering to do the job for $20 a day and I can’t match that, then maybe my business isn’t sustainable and I should bow out. The point is, each job is unique and should be compensated accordingly. There’s no one-size-fits-all wage. The market and the law of supply and demand are the closest thing we have to a fair system. Let people determine what they’re willing to work for and what they’re willing to pay for that work. People aren’t dumb; they can decide if a dollar an hour or a hundred works for them.

Personally, I’m a proponent of Universal Basic Income. Instead of fussing over minimum wages and social benefits, let’s switch to UBI and support each other as a society. Sure, we should tax the wealthy, but relying on minimum wage as a fix? That’s a misguided notion. Minimum wage was a band-aid solution for inequality that’s stuck around longer than it should have. If you’re in favor of it, you’re essentially backing the status quo. We need fresh solutions for inequality, ones that break free from the usual narratives pushed by the media and society. It’s not easy, I get that. But let’s dare to think beyond the confines of convention and consider the future generations. Society seems stuck in a loop, and frankly, I’m fed up. Aren’t you?