We're always told the people at the bottom rung of society, the people doing "entry level" jobs just need to work harder and harder to earn a proper living...

But how does that work really? Unlike a lot of high level jobs, none of these jobs just exist for the sake of existing, most of these "entry level" jobs are essential to society (we saw that much during the pandemic).

Somebody has to do them or society just doesn't work, so don't the people doing these literally essential jobs deserve to be paid a fair living wage? They're working just as hard as the people above them, yet they're paid peanuts in comparison

[–] cobra89 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They're working just as hard as the people above them

Woah woah woah, let's not get out of hand here. We all know they're working way harder than the people above them.

[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

only one way... come on lets not do flattery to the capitalist class here

[–] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean if you think about it, the default of humanity is to die of thirst assuming we were to do nothing so 'earning a living' is just a realistic expectation for any society.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 7 months ago

If you follow that reasoning, the ultimate conclusion is that it's perfectly fine to let sick or disabled people die.

[–] Conyak@lemmy.tf 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

That is 100% true in a capitalist society. You are measured by your ability to produce.

Edit: Apparently this needs some clarification. You are measured by your ability to produce for your owner.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's also true in the woods, if you don't do anything useful you'll just die.

[–] Kwakigra 3 points 7 months ago

Not true. If I have a group of people and they believe I'm extremely wealthy I don't have to do anything but promise to share my wealth with them according to how much I value them, making them compete with each other for my affection. This counts as work and it takes skill but I wouldn't say that doing this is useful.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Kwakigra 1 points 7 months ago

This is wishful thinking. People are not paid according to their productivity, although it is a minor factor. People are paid accordingly for a variety of factors including region, negotiating ability, charisma, job demand (the more a job is objectively helpful the less it is paid because people are willing to do it for its own merits), and network if they are commoners. If they are born into the ruling class or have amassed enough wealth to live through arbitrage, there is no requirement to produce anything other than the idea that you are productive.

The owner doesn't pay proportionally to their worker's ability to produce, they pay according to how little they can get away with since in order to profit it is necessary to minimize expenses. If two employees are important but the less productive employee refuses to work for less than a certain amount and the more productive employee is satisfied with what they're being paid, the less productive employee will be paid more.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 15 points 7 months ago

Thank you Mr. Skeletor. It is important to get the occasional outside perspective on living from an undead evil villain. Nyeh.

[–] Epicmulch@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago (7 children)

You need to consume to live. This means you need to manipulate your surroundings in order to survive. So you need to work to have your basic needs meet. You don't just get to live with zero effort.

[–] Nevoic@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is the natural order, yet paraplegics live, why? Because we live in a society that attempts to circumvent the natural order in many ways, for the good of all.

You should take a broader materialistic look on society, who does the work (the working class), who benefits from the work (the owner class), and instead of focusing on amping up people to devote their lives to serve the interests of capital, instead focus to reframe the goals of society to serve the interests of workers, which includes working less, or even not at all. Work is not labor.

[–] Epicmulch@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's an entirely different argument. I agree with you on that topic. Reframing capitalism to fit human well being is what we should do. But feeding everyone for free with zero work from anyone just isn't possible. Saying there are starving people because capitalism is just straight up wrong. There have always been starving people and probably will always be. Feeding everyone is logistically crazy difficult. If it ever did happen it would take a ridiculous amount of work and money from a lot of people.

[–] Nevoic@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Socialists use work and labor to describe different things. Work is the set of actions a worker is coerced to participate in by capitalists to align with the interests of capital. Labor can be something you engage in as part of work, but that's not always the case. Sometimes people have jobs that are so inefficient or bullshit that they literally don't labor at all at work (read Bullshit Jobs).

Labor is necessary (currently), work is not. Aligning with the interests of capital is not synonymous with the interests of humanity (think ad work, literally encouraging greater consumption, especially around harmful products like tobacco/alcohol/sugar. Most western countries now have bans on tobacco advertising, but still let advertising in general flourish).

On the topic of feeding everyone, it would be very logistically difficult in the 1600s no doubt. Now we have a massive international trade system, I can easily get massive amounts of goods shipped from the other side of the world in weeks or maybe months at the worst. We also produce enough food currently to feed 12 billion people, and that's with our incredibly inefficient system of converting edible plant matter (mostly soy) to animals.

The issue is, under capitalism, poor people don't deserve to eat. If they lack money, they're better off dead than alive and consuming resources without paying for them, so that's what the global international capitalist system does, it moves more than enough food great enough distances to feed everyone as it is. It just moves it to the rich countries where obesity has been a massive issue instead of the global south, because people in rich countries have the money to pay for food, and so they deserve to live (and overeat/waste food) but people born in Africa deserve death.

Capitalists often lose sight of what an economy is for. An economy isn't something of value in and of itself, it's about setting up incentives and systems to benefit humanity. Capitalism fails to do this in everyway that is uniquely capitalist. Anything it does right is attributed to the general functioning of markets, which existed before capitalism and can exist after capitalism (market socialism is a real thing). There are problems with markets no doubt, but capitalism really has no redeeming qualities when compared to market socialism. If you compare it to feudalism, it does do better at mobilizing productive forces, of course at the massive detriment to workers.

[–] wowwoweowza@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (13 children)

Thank you brave friend. I came here to say this.

I’m so fatigued by the sentiment behind this meme and so many others.

Ergh… there’s something intruding on my video game playing… what an inconvenience… boo hoo…

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Youths of today discovering idioms of yesteryear going, "mm technically, this implies..." as if that wasn't the obvious, intended implication to begin with.

[–] HopingForBetter@lemmings.world 1 points 7 months ago

"Your system is functioning as intended - no maintenance necessary."

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 4 points 7 months ago

And yet we get born. Motherfuckers!

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You do have a right to be alive, if you can gather the food to put in your mouth and get shelter (in most climates), and defend yourself from predators.

'Earning a living' is just some way people can do that. But you still need to defend against the predators.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In any good society everyone who is able should be expected to contribute something though. Even in the wild you have the right to be alive but you don't have the right to free food, shelter etc without working for it

Similarly under capitalism you're not going to be executed for not working but also unless there's a good reason you can't contribute nobody's going to work to feed you for nothing in return

load more comments (1 replies)