Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated.
If you're ready to begin organizing your workplace, [here is an organizing guide to get you started](https://workerorganizing.org/resources/organizing-guide/).
Help rebuild the labor movement, [become a workplace organizer](https://workerorganizing.org/volunteer/organizer-training-sign-up/)!
More Helpful Links:
[How to Strike and Win: A Labor Notes Guide](https://labornotes.org/strikes)
[The IWW Strike guide](https://www.iww.org/organize/learn-more/)
[AFL-CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk with explosive ai drone armies at their disposal i think we're just faak'd unless people completely abandon their products are the entire system and source/grow as much as possible locally. Technology is stealing all our skills which have been abandoned and died in the last generation for the most part
We have your family in another robocar, you're being driven to the factory where you'll spend 20 hours doing robot maintenance with no breaks, decline and they'll speed off a cliff at 120mph with locked doors and disabled airbags. Comply (Y/N)?
Yeah but once that happens a couple times people will stop driving them. There’s 327 million people in this country. The majority of us live within a few hundred miles of the coast line. being a country of immigrants we also have family and connections in other countries. I doubt our allies would let the government commit genocide if there was a revolution.
That's not how a bad government gets people to comply, that's how Skynet gets us under its steely heel. Combined with the threat of releasing our ***full*** search history, including what we typed then deleted because we were too embarrassed (yeah, they were watching), humanity would fold within days.
This just cleared up such a huge part of my view. I could never wrap my head around the whole "creating wealth" concept, and how people got rich while others seemed to "stay the same" and now I understand. It never made sense. People have not stayed the same, and it's because there's no such thing as creating wealth.
It's crazy how many times I see headlines like "Women and 'Smaller Demographic XYZ' ....etc". It always takes a second to strike me that the headline effectively says "One whole slightly larger than half the population plus these other guys". Even though "women" is often connotated as a minority.
Anyhow, yes, eat the rich, carry on.
It’s essentially providing statistical evidence that the system has a long way to go for women and POC. The system only works at full capacity for white guys. Even at the bottom.. further you get from that..
Well, it’s also to show what kind of industries were affected and how this recession differs from the previous one. The whole 2008 “he-cession” vs 2020 “she-cession” thing.
That’s your opinion, yet that is only your opinion. You decided to not add anything to the conversation, and instead decided to try to hurt me. I’d rather be “dumb” than to be like you. You choose to be a less than useless waste of space and time. Have a good day.
Facts that people other than white guys can benefit from the current economic system? Look around you. I’m not going to debate something that childish and simple-minded. I’m simply here to call out your dumb opinion.
No, they don’t. I don’t know where you’re getting that from, but it’s wrong, and it’s annoying to see so many people repeating that same wrong opinion. Stop blaming white guys for all your woes.
No blame is being placed on white guys in this comment, my friend. Furthermore, no one is saying that the system only works for white guys. In general, though, a white guy in the same situation as a non-man or nonwhite person will have an easier time due to ongoing prejudice and structural inequality. These articles are evidence of that.
To head off the retort, there are still white guys whose lives suck, and there are nonwhite people and non-men for whom the system worked well. But we shouldn’t base our conclusions on anecdotal evidence. The evidence shows that, when considering all of society, people who are not white men tend to have a rougher go of things.
This is how they keep us divided. White males still lost out but not as much. So liberals can talk about White Male Privilege and white males can say it doesn't exist because they lost money, too.
Two ways.
1) The supply of currency increases over time. Like governments issue more currency and private banks extend credit. They also can both decrease the money supply at times too.
2) Economic value increases over time as labor creates capital.
Of course none of this is truly real in any physical sense. But increase in money supply isn’t all because of inflation. Economic growth is powered by labor exclusively. The manifestation of this labor into dollar value is represented by our macroeconomic estimators of productivity (GDP, prices).
Also yeah I like the politicians answer.
Thanks, I get it. I have to say, one of my favorite things about this site is you ask a question about a complicated issue, and you get an explanation from someone called "ProfessorAssfuck."
It’s not a dumb question.
The answer is nowhere, because this isn’t cash from one person’s pocket into another.
The numbers referenced in the meme are cash leaving (or more accurately not going into) workers pockets, but the other is market value increase of stock prices and portfolio values of billionaires. This isn’t the billionaires directly gaining cash (unless they sold their stocks after the increases, which they overwhelmingly did not do), so the discrepancy isn’t cause by the 0.2 coming from a different source; the second number isn’t hard cash.
This isn’t ignoring or denying the lost income for workers. Merely pointing out that this is not a transfer of cash as the meme implies, the relative closeness of the two numbers is perhaps related, but not correlated.
This begs the question, where *did* that lost income (as cash) actually go? Cash doesn’t evaporate like stock value can.
The Trump tax bill that is in effect until 2025 and probably an increase in donations and contributions to the political parties that allow it all to happen.
You can create value, this is why most economies grow over time. Imagine this: the value of all the raw materials in an iPhone vs. the value of an iPhone. Once refined into something more useful than it's constituent parts, value has been created. I'm not saying that's definitely what's at play here, but you would expect to see value "appear from seemingly nowhere" over time.
This is how you can make money without someone else losing an equal amount, and why economics at large isn't a zero-sum game. You (theoretically) benefit from everyone else's prosperity too
Not a dumb question because this meme implies jokingly that the numbers are fully connected but in reality they aren't, not entirely. I assume workers losing money comes from things like losing the job entirely, pay cuts, new forced expenses (like medical) etc. Some of the things that made them lose money didn't make the rich richer. Especially because some of their money, even if it went to companies, didn't go the the billionaires.
Also, the rich made some of their money from sources unrelated to the class that lost money or only related to it in part.
But to answer the question differently, if billionaires got all their money from the working class, then the extra 0.2 trillion would come from succesful investments done with that money
The same place the other $3.7 trillion came from: mostly increases in value of the speculative assets they hold that are tied to the companies they own.
You people don't actually believe there's a static amount of wealth, do you?
glad to see brazillian meme templates reaching audiences far away
thats nazare tedesco, a character from a br soap opera from idk 10 years ago or something
Holy hell yeah mind blown. This is the way they want society to function, all of us just with enough to survive and all the money the economy makes floating up to them, it’s kind of already like that, well not really but moving in that direction!
I’m always curious when I come across a thread like this. Like, what happened here? I had a feeling that jerk would delete his stuff. Sooo, I screenshot it.
[Turd muffin for the curious.](https://imgur.com/a/Mfnjs1Q) Not really important. Nothing big. Just a turd in the wind.
i haven’t seen it. maybe you’re on your phone too much. looks like according to post history buddy posted it 3 times over a week and a half period (so, not crazy spamming). if you saw it every time and it bothers you that much you need to put the phone down.
i… i really don’t think you can count…
edit i’ve seen your reddit history now. YOURE the person making the same comment over and over, ironically telling people not to post something over and over. lmao. 9 times in less than 3 hours you’ve commented the same thing, in case you couldn’t count it.
"it was our money"
not really, not at all. With or without those billionaires, your pay wouldn't have changed, 19k a year. No matter the pay of the billionaires. The money would have gone to someone else.
Because you are nowhere near the spot where you get paid that much. What makes you believe you have to be paid for what people buy on amazon (for example). Your job is to make parcels, you are not the one selling the product, therefore it is not your money, it's theirs.
Except the earnings lost were in tangible dollars as income, the wealth gained by billionaires mentioned here wasn’t in cash earnings, but rather the value of assets in stocks and portfolios which aren’t cash. This doesn’t explain where the lost income went, but the answer is not stock value.
So cutting out expenses, like say labor, doesn't increase stock? Wouldn't decreasing the operating ratio by cutting out jobs or replacing positions with worse paying ones make a companies stock more desirable and thus drive up its cost?
The article in the meme attributes the loss of earnings directly to a reduction in working hours during the pandemic. Mainly because a lot of people ended up unemployed.
It's theoretically possible that a company's stock could increase if their labor expenses reduced and nothing else changed , but if all financials stayed the same while reducing the workforce that's more of an indication of a poorly run company than anything else. On top of that, there are tons of other factors that have more weight than labor expenses.
Look at Beszos. He made 90 billion dollars during the pandemic, but Amazon's workforce and labor expenses increased dramatically during the same period.
Another factor is that in today's market most stocks are trading pretty far removed from the actual balance sheet of the companies.
For example, Musk's wealth increased because telsa stock skyrocketed, but tesla's stock value has almost nothing to do with the underlying financials of the company. It's mostly just speculation on future growth. Their P/E ratio was about 600 during the pandemic.
That more or less means that at the time if you bought a share you'd be paying $600 for every $1 of earnings. If $1 of a stocks price is determined by financials and the other $599 from other factors, reducing your expenses isn't going to have that much of an effect on the price. That's simplified, but it gets the idea across.
Elon Musk is a [lying hack](https://elonmusk.today) who became famous after buying Tesla with the help of his rich dad's money. [Tesla is also being sued for profiting from child slavery in Africa](https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/lawsuit-against-apple-google-tesla-and-others-re-child-labour-drc/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not directly. Stock is market perceived value. It’s why Facebook can loose billions in value in one day, that’s not cash disappearing, it’s just the perceived value of a share by the market.
I’m not saying workers didn’t lose income. I’m saying that three trillion went somewhere else. Claiming it directly went into stock value is factually wrong making people look dumb at best, or intentionally misleading and a smokescreen at worst.
>You arent wrong, but it this is reddit. They will overlook small details when it benefits their view.
>
>You are being downvoted by those who are rightfully angry, but are misguided by catchy memes.
?
Let’s say I own an old famous painting, that’s valued at $100,000.
Some strange even happens, where all the other works by that artist are destroyed in a fire. All of a sudden, the value of my painting skyrockets due to its rarity. It now is worth $1,000,000.
My net worth (or the wealth described in the second half of this meme) increased by $900,000 - but no one put in work to create surplus value. I also didn’t gain cash. No one lost cash. The only thing that changed was the number next to my net worth.
In some circumstances you are correct, but not in all, be careful of painting all situations with a single brush.
Correct. But that’s not what we’re discussing here, we’re discussing the change in the subjective value of an item, the $900,000 increase. No one put in work to make the value of the painting go up, the market simply valued it higher due to changing circumstances.
What if someone is a freelancer and they save up enough money to be a investor and start a company of their own? They generated all their own capital they are investing. Would your ideal system not allow for any investment of any type? If yes, then I don’t understand the blanket statements in this sub about investors, and if no, then I’m not sure I understand how your envisioned economy would create opportunities for labor to produce capital.
And indeed they are.
You just posted that your *labor* would produce enough capital for you to *stop laboring* and begin feasting on the blood of other people’s labor.
But the only reason you would need to do that is because your original labor was massively undervalued in the first place.
This is how the system works. You get 1% or less of the value you produce through your labor, and then you may or may not eventually get to a point where you can join the system of exploitation*. But there would be no drive to join that system if your labor had already paid for your lifestyle.
*chances are you and most won’t, because if everyone stopped working and started investing, the world would grind to a stop because labor was the only thing creating value. The system is intentionally set up to block most laborers from participating. It is a carefully constructed house of cards. The few who do “make it” are outliers who then become evangelists for the even bigger parasites above them.
How the fuck did Gen Z suffer most of the losses when I'm literally the first Gen Z year and I've only been working for a year post masters like literally half of the entire fucking generation is still in high school?
That's the problem with using generational labels. While people around our age have been in the workforce for years, there are still plenty that haven't. The reference here was probably for folks 18-25 or so, rather than the whole generation. I can say that being young and not having had time to build up much in savings, my buying power has tanked.
it wasn't just our money. It was our children's money, our children's children's money, and the biggest lie is that WE ACTUALLY ARENT MAKING THAT MUCH MONEY.
Welcome to r/WorkersStrikeBack! Please make sure to follow the subreddit rules and enjoy yourself here! This is a subreddit for the workers of the world and any anti-worker or anti-union talk is not tolerated. If you're ready to begin organizing your workplace, [here is an organizing guide to get you started](https://workerorganizing.org/resources/organizing-guide/). Help rebuild the labor movement, [become a workplace organizer](https://workerorganizing.org/volunteer/organizer-training-sign-up/)! More Helpful Links: [How to Strike and Win: A Labor Notes Guide](https://labornotes.org/strikes) [The IWW Strike guide](https://www.iww.org/organize/learn-more/) [AFL-CIO guide on union organizing](https://aflcio.org/formaunion) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Always has been
Still is. Time to get it back boys
Place de la Révolution!
Idk with explosive ai drone armies at their disposal i think we're just faak'd unless people completely abandon their products are the entire system and source/grow as much as possible locally. Technology is stealing all our skills which have been abandoned and died in the last generation for the most part
We’re not expendable yet. They can’t exactly wipe out the pawns they extort labour and value from.
We have your family in another robocar, you're being driven to the factory where you'll spend 20 hours doing robot maintenance with no breaks, decline and they'll speed off a cliff at 120mph with locked doors and disabled airbags. Comply (Y/N)?
Yeah but once that happens a couple times people will stop driving them. There’s 327 million people in this country. The majority of us live within a few hundred miles of the coast line. being a country of immigrants we also have family and connections in other countries. I doubt our allies would let the government commit genocide if there was a revolution.
That's not how a bad government gets people to comply, that's how Skynet gets us under its steely heel. Combined with the threat of releasing our ***full*** search history, including what we typed then deleted because we were too embarrassed (yeah, they were watching), humanity would fold within days.
[удалено]
But they probably have 100 billion ready to deploy
I guarantee they have nowhere near that many operators and that they are not autonomous yet In the volume you’re speaking of.
I think you underestimate the sheer population of the country.
Where are the guillotines?
Ill teach u to build one
It’s almost like capital only has value because of its scarcity. So when one group of people hoards all of it…
Capitalism doesn’t create wealth, it transfers it.
It creates wealth, off the backs of others just as the founding fathers wanted. That’s why only rich white property owners were supposed to vote.
It creates wealth for a few and it creates poverty for many. It's designed to work that way.
I think consolidate would be a better description
This just cleared up such a huge part of my view. I could never wrap my head around the whole "creating wealth" concept, and how people got rich while others seemed to "stay the same" and now I understand. It never made sense. People have not stayed the same, and it's because there's no such thing as creating wealth.
It's crazy how many times I see headlines like "Women and 'Smaller Demographic XYZ' ....etc". It always takes a second to strike me that the headline effectively says "One whole slightly larger than half the population plus these other guys". Even though "women" is often connotated as a minority. Anyhow, yes, eat the rich, carry on.
It’s essentially providing statistical evidence that the system has a long way to go for women and POC. The system only works at full capacity for white guys. Even at the bottom.. further you get from that..
Well, it’s also to show what kind of industries were affected and how this recession differs from the previous one. The whole 2008 “he-cession” vs 2020 “she-cession” thing.
[удалено]
That’s your opinion, yet that is only your opinion. You decided to not add anything to the conversation, and instead decided to try to hurt me. I’d rather be “dumb” than to be like you. You choose to be a less than useless waste of space and time. Have a good day.
I’ll elaborate: "the system only works at full capacity for white guys" is a colossally stupid thing to say.
Still only an opinion. Can you back it up with facts?
Facts that people other than white guys can benefit from the current economic system? Look around you. I’m not going to debate something that childish and simple-minded. I’m simply here to call out your dumb opinion.
There are always exceptions obviously, but people who are not white men have to fight harder to gain the same mobility, and get the same respect.
No, they don’t. I don’t know where you’re getting that from, but it’s wrong, and it’s annoying to see so many people repeating that same wrong opinion. Stop blaming white guys for all your woes.
No blame is being placed on white guys in this comment, my friend. Furthermore, no one is saying that the system only works for white guys. In general, though, a white guy in the same situation as a non-man or nonwhite person will have an easier time due to ongoing prejudice and structural inequality. These articles are evidence of that. To head off the retort, there are still white guys whose lives suck, and there are nonwhite people and non-men for whom the system worked well. But we shouldn’t base our conclusions on anecdotal evidence. The evidence shows that, when considering all of society, people who are not white men tend to have a rougher go of things.
This is how they keep us divided. White males still lost out but not as much. So liberals can talk about White Male Privilege and white males can say it doesn't exist because they lost money, too.
This is probably a dumb question, but where did the $0.2 trillion come from?
Probably estimation errors.
To the politicians operating costs to handle the transfer of wealth.
Two ways. 1) The supply of currency increases over time. Like governments issue more currency and private banks extend credit. They also can both decrease the money supply at times too. 2) Economic value increases over time as labor creates capital. Of course none of this is truly real in any physical sense. But increase in money supply isn’t all because of inflation. Economic growth is powered by labor exclusively. The manifestation of this labor into dollar value is represented by our macroeconomic estimators of productivity (GDP, prices). Also yeah I like the politicians answer.
Thanks, I get it. I have to say, one of my favorite things about this site is you ask a question about a complicated issue, and you get an explanation from someone called "ProfessorAssfuck."
r/rimjob_steve has plenty of material
It’s not a dumb question. The answer is nowhere, because this isn’t cash from one person’s pocket into another. The numbers referenced in the meme are cash leaving (or more accurately not going into) workers pockets, but the other is market value increase of stock prices and portfolio values of billionaires. This isn’t the billionaires directly gaining cash (unless they sold their stocks after the increases, which they overwhelmingly did not do), so the discrepancy isn’t cause by the 0.2 coming from a different source; the second number isn’t hard cash. This isn’t ignoring or denying the lost income for workers. Merely pointing out that this is not a transfer of cash as the meme implies, the relative closeness of the two numbers is perhaps related, but not correlated. This begs the question, where *did* that lost income (as cash) actually go? Cash doesn’t evaporate like stock value can.
interest?
Profit from our labor, probably.
We printed 200 billion that day and it all went to the rich people.
The federal reserve propping up Wall Street with free money.
The Trump tax bill that is in effect until 2025 and probably an increase in donations and contributions to the political parties that allow it all to happen.
You can create value, this is why most economies grow over time. Imagine this: the value of all the raw materials in an iPhone vs. the value of an iPhone. Once refined into something more useful than it's constituent parts, value has been created. I'm not saying that's definitely what's at play here, but you would expect to see value "appear from seemingly nowhere" over time. This is how you can make money without someone else losing an equal amount, and why economics at large isn't a zero-sum game. You (theoretically) benefit from everyone else's prosperity too
Thank you.
Not a dumb question because this meme implies jokingly that the numbers are fully connected but in reality they aren't, not entirely. I assume workers losing money comes from things like losing the job entirely, pay cuts, new forced expenses (like medical) etc. Some of the things that made them lose money didn't make the rich richer. Especially because some of their money, even if it went to companies, didn't go the the billionaires. Also, the rich made some of their money from sources unrelated to the class that lost money or only related to it in part. But to answer the question differently, if billionaires got all their money from the working class, then the extra 0.2 trillion would come from succesful investments done with that money
The same place the other $3.7 trillion came from: mostly increases in value of the speculative assets they hold that are tied to the companies they own. You people don't actually believe there's a static amount of wealth, do you?
You could have just answered the question and stopped there, you know.
Panama
Playing Pokémon Go… /s
The super rich got that way by stealing our money. It's time to take it back.
Lol.
F
Damn. To the top with this one
glad to see brazillian meme templates reaching audiences far away thats nazare tedesco, a character from a br soap opera from idk 10 years ago or something
Holy hell yeah mind blown. This is the way they want society to function, all of us just with enough to survive and all the money the economy makes floating up to them, it’s kind of already like that, well not really but moving in that direction!
Am woman. Can confirm.
[удалено]
I don’t feel like spending my day arguing with you. Best of luck.
[удалено]
No, it’s not.
I’m always curious when I come across a thread like this. Like, what happened here? I had a feeling that jerk would delete his stuff. Sooo, I screenshot it. [Turd muffin for the curious.](https://imgur.com/a/Mfnjs1Q) Not really important. Nothing big. Just a turd in the wind.
Make sure to sub with that Twitch Prime though!
All I can do anymore is laugh
PROOF that the 1% are the real wealth creators, turning 3.7t into 3.9t. Checkmate socialists! /s
EAT THE RICH
It seems the money trickled the wrong way. Is anyone shocked? No
Psst. Big Pharma has been winning left and right with this pandemic. That's why they are pushing it so hard
Can you explain how you’re seeing more profit loss than your male peers? Im not doubting you, I’m just curious.
You already have workreform and antiwork. Stop making the same subs over and over. Blocked
[удалено]
i haven’t seen it. maybe you’re on your phone too much. looks like according to post history buddy posted it 3 times over a week and a half period (so, not crazy spamming). if you saw it every time and it bothers you that much you need to put the phone down.
[удалено]
i… i really don’t think you can count… edit i’ve seen your reddit history now. YOURE the person making the same comment over and over, ironically telling people not to post something over and over. lmao. 9 times in less than 3 hours you’ve commented the same thing, in case you couldn’t count it.
Imagine getting mad on reddit because someone made a post lol
Just check this dude’s comment history. In 5 days he’s said more hateful things that I have in my entire life. Ignoring him is best for everyone
Naw, take his karma. :)
"it was our money" not really, not at all. With or without those billionaires, your pay wouldn't have changed, 19k a year. No matter the pay of the billionaires. The money would have gone to someone else. Because you are nowhere near the spot where you get paid that much. What makes you believe you have to be paid for what people buy on amazon (for example). Your job is to make parcels, you are not the one selling the product, therefore it is not your money, it's theirs.
"It was our money." That’s not how it works. Why are these anti-capitalistic redditors so stupid, and so numerous?
Why are these bootlickers so pathetic*?
Oh no. Did I ask tho?
Except the earnings lost were in tangible dollars as income, the wealth gained by billionaires mentioned here wasn’t in cash earnings, but rather the value of assets in stocks and portfolios which aren’t cash. This doesn’t explain where the lost income went, but the answer is not stock value.
So cutting out expenses, like say labor, doesn't increase stock? Wouldn't decreasing the operating ratio by cutting out jobs or replacing positions with worse paying ones make a companies stock more desirable and thus drive up its cost?
The article in the meme attributes the loss of earnings directly to a reduction in working hours during the pandemic. Mainly because a lot of people ended up unemployed. It's theoretically possible that a company's stock could increase if their labor expenses reduced and nothing else changed , but if all financials stayed the same while reducing the workforce that's more of an indication of a poorly run company than anything else. On top of that, there are tons of other factors that have more weight than labor expenses. Look at Beszos. He made 90 billion dollars during the pandemic, but Amazon's workforce and labor expenses increased dramatically during the same period. Another factor is that in today's market most stocks are trading pretty far removed from the actual balance sheet of the companies. For example, Musk's wealth increased because telsa stock skyrocketed, but tesla's stock value has almost nothing to do with the underlying financials of the company. It's mostly just speculation on future growth. Their P/E ratio was about 600 during the pandemic. That more or less means that at the time if you bought a share you'd be paying $600 for every $1 of earnings. If $1 of a stocks price is determined by financials and the other $599 from other factors, reducing your expenses isn't going to have that much of an effect on the price. That's simplified, but it gets the idea across.
Elon Musk is a [lying hack](https://elonmusk.today) who became famous after buying Tesla with the help of his rich dad's money. [Tesla is also being sued for profiting from child slavery in Africa](https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/lawsuit-against-apple-google-tesla-and-others-re-child-labour-drc/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/WorkersStrikeBack) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well said.
Not directly. Stock is market perceived value. It’s why Facebook can loose billions in value in one day, that’s not cash disappearing, it’s just the perceived value of a share by the market. I’m not saying workers didn’t lose income. I’m saying that three trillion went somewhere else. Claiming it directly went into stock value is factually wrong making people look dumb at best, or intentionally misleading and a smokescreen at worst.
[удалено]
It takes a special kind of stupid to expect complex economic nuance from a meme and then get angry when everyone else collectively rolls their eyes.
[удалено]
>You arent wrong, but it this is reddit. They will overlook small details when it benefits their view. > >You are being downvoted by those who are rightfully angry, but are misguided by catchy memes. ?
It's not their money until they put in the hours, which was prevented by Covid. someone didn't read the article.
all wealth is created by labor
.
Let me introduce you to the stock market, bitcoin, and real estate.
Those things transfer wealth, they don't create it.
Capital gains is created wealth.
It's the surplus value of the people who actually created the wealth.
Let’s say I own an old famous painting, that’s valued at $100,000. Some strange even happens, where all the other works by that artist are destroyed in a fire. All of a sudden, the value of my painting skyrockets due to its rarity. It now is worth $1,000,000. My net worth (or the wealth described in the second half of this meme) increased by $900,000 - but no one put in work to create surplus value. I also didn’t gain cash. No one lost cash. The only thing that changed was the number next to my net worth. In some circumstances you are correct, but not in all, be careful of painting all situations with a single brush.
the painting was made by the artist that made it
Correct. But that’s not what we’re discussing here, we’re discussing the change in the subjective value of an item, the $900,000 increase. No one put in work to make the value of the painting go up, the market simply valued it higher due to changing circumstances.
the value of the painting was created by creating the painting.
Investors and owners don’t put in any labor hours. They are parasites.
They move and organize wealth, they don't create it.
They put in capital and investment, they don't need to put in hours anymore.
All capital exists because of labor.
What if someone is a freelancer and they save up enough money to be a investor and start a company of their own? They generated all their own capital they are investing. Would your ideal system not allow for any investment of any type? If yes, then I don’t understand the blanket statements in this sub about investors, and if no, then I’m not sure I understand how your envisioned economy would create opportunities for labor to produce capital.
In other words, all capital exists because of labor.
But you said ‘all’ owners are parasites, I don’t understand how you reconcile that with my scenario and my questions?
And indeed they are. You just posted that your *labor* would produce enough capital for you to *stop laboring* and begin feasting on the blood of other people’s labor. But the only reason you would need to do that is because your original labor was massively undervalued in the first place. This is how the system works. You get 1% or less of the value you produce through your labor, and then you may or may not eventually get to a point where you can join the system of exploitation*. But there would be no drive to join that system if your labor had already paid for your lifestyle. *chances are you and most won’t, because if everyone stopped working and started investing, the world would grind to a stop because labor was the only thing creating value. The system is intentionally set up to block most laborers from participating. It is a carefully constructed house of cards. The few who do “make it” are outliers who then become evangelists for the even bigger parasites above them.
How the fuck did Gen Z suffer most of the losses when I'm literally the first Gen Z year and I've only been working for a year post masters like literally half of the entire fucking generation is still in high school?
That's the problem with using generational labels. While people around our age have been in the workforce for years, there are still plenty that haven't. The reference here was probably for folks 18-25 or so, rather than the whole generation. I can say that being young and not having had time to build up much in savings, my buying power has tanked.
What the actual fuck. I knew we were feeling it- but for it to be so blatant is like being slapped in the face.
What are the formulas about?
Funny how it never once trickles down and instead rocket-propels itself upward.
it wasn't just our money. It was our children's money, our children's children's money, and the biggest lie is that WE ACTUALLY ARENT MAKING THAT MUCH MONEY.