OceansRust
23568
641
32
Oct 29, 2025 10:59 PM
OceansRust
23568
641
32
PlayerBhatin
Corporate: They aren't full time, they only work 39 hours
JessSpile
If you can implement a new technology which reduces 50% of your work in a company - why is it expected to reduce the workforce? why not reduce everyones workweek by 50% for the same pay. Which can be for life. Shareholders, I know. It's the shareholders..
Millstone85
How about "No one who lives in poverty should be made to work 40 hours a week for no improvement whatsoever"?
Xcallion1
I argued with an 18 year old kid a few months ago and he claimed that if you're working 40 hours a week and you're going hungry, it just means that you were dumb for not getting a better job He also said that even if you had "made that mistake" then you could just go to your church for help. He also didn't have any opinion on what a government was for other than strongly believing that they should just not be a part of his life at all. There are people out there who won't even agree with Robin.
semperknight
But it happens and you all deserve it. I went on reddit stating I may have solved affordable housing and they did nothing but insult me. When I talk about what actual worker class affordable costs should be, no one gets it or cares. I think, deep down, you all want the oligarch boot on your neck. It's in your American DNA. Well, I'm out of this country as soon as I find one that wants my plans. Can't get away from you slaves fast enough.
Skywatcher16
current billionares should live in poverty. as penance for their crimes against humanity
enkrypt3d
us paying for snap AND walmart subsidies is the real crime for those that are working full time yet can't maek ends meet.....
makeamericasmartagain9000
Billionaires should live in poverty
Idontneedrealfacts
I mean, Bruce Wayne might not be the best person to use for this meme
ItsATrap
Its about the language to get the normies to say "yeah, wtf?" This is 100% correct, but we need to radicalize them out of the right wing framing the mainstream media has just accepted.
Evi1Gav
It's amazing when you speak to some people that they just have a list of people they believe should be cowering servants to their whims.
cadesama
Alex Jones should live in poverty
thedudeman519
Sounds like you're a radical leftistdemocrat liberal socialist communist marxist to me
IhopeUgetwhatUvoted4
Espically if you are the "richest" country in the world
astrangehop
We are by average. (after switzerland) The top ten percent own a wildly large percent of things here. We have enough that every adult could own 620000 worth of it.
BladeTurMoiL
80 hrs a week. Still poverty. Fuck this country.
OperatorWay
Having our personal survival dependent upon whatever money we can collect in exchange for our individual labor/output cannot be the foundation of a functioning human economy when productivity advancements from industrialization & technology continually reduce the amount of human labor needed to produce abundance for everyone while most/all of the gains/wealth from that increased productivity only go to the richest few.
flarflarf
both are correct and theres no use alienating anyone who says either thing by acting like an asshole about it.
AgentTasmania
Infighting over perfectionism is the left's favourite thing while the right are happy to blob together as long as things get worse
sometimesarobot
Ascetics would disagree, but that's not the same thing.
Daliena06
Maybe if we amended it to "Nobody should HAVE to live in poverty"? If someone decides they *want* to, then sure, they can suit themselves, but it should be a choice and all that jazz.
sometimesarobot
I like that one
brokenturtle
No one should see the word poverty and misspell it in their head as Pavarotti
Direkt4
I REALLY dislike that he had his sugar baby boy toy get plastic surgery to look like him. He literally wanted to fuck himself.
bertchstudio
Tbf and not to sound too much like afkn incel, but some of us have to love ourselves because no one else will and that's often where the massive ego first forms
It's a defense against shitty adults basically
Direkt4
I wasn't aware self love involved romantic interest.
bertchstudio
You should always love yourself first. If you don't know what you like yourself how can you communicate that to a partner?
thrael
You could have just plugged the words in with MS paint but you had to go AI on it?
trigonman3
Piss yellow FTW!
idrinkcheapbeer
a UBI is poison to the right wing in the USA Even though it works.
youreathing
UBI is poison to capitalism, period, because that system requires an overly represented wealth class to "succeed."
echonite
Capitalism doesnt require that, that would be unfettered capitalism. You can still have capitalism even with rules and regulations, and still have ultra rich people. But greed is what makes the latter not viable for such people.
spaghettiThunderbolt
It just further enables people to be lazy, worthless leeches. You think civilization just magically happens? Spoiler alert: it doesn't, it's the result of people working and contributing to society.
RemanentSky
You seem to think it is inevitable to think that people who don't have to work, won't. This is not at all inevitable.
FungusForge
You'd be amazed at the contributions one could make when they aren't worried about missing a check and becoming homeless.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Gainful employment is contributing to society, that's the whole point. Art does not contribute to society. Playing video games in your underwear in your mom's basement does not contribute to society. Popping out 10 kids with 10 different fathers does not contribute to society.
RemanentSky
Art not contributing to society is one hell of a hot take. Not sure how to justify that one.
idrinkcheapbeer
and this right here is how deep this "you need to be productive at a level i see fit" mantra goes. You see any kind of welfare benefits as a drain to what you think society should be. this is absolutely the maga stance on empathy. you have a tiny orange tic tac lodged firmly down your throat, whether you realize it or not.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Because 99% of welfare is a net negative. End of story. It's taking from those who actually work and are productive, and giving to lazy pieces of shit. Why should I have to pay to support some fat piece of shit who's allergic to job interviews and has more baby daddies than fingers?
FungusForge
I like how contributing to society in your eyes is just lining billionaire pockets.
spaghettiThunderbolt
Contributing to society is providing a needed good or service. Factory work contributes to society. Waiting tables contributes to society. Don't be salty about other people having money because you can't be bothered to get a job.
[deleted]
[deleted]
fgh2000
the secret is you don't have to
ThisNameUnavailable
People shouldn't have to work at all. The true promise of our species lies in a time when that statement is realized.
randomwalrus
But then how will I, a CEO of seven companies, who works 0 hours a week, afford my sixth super yacht?
onlyhalfghost
you can probably do that with the increased profits your company is making from the larger customer base spending more money >
onlyhalfghost
> however, ideally, you simply don't exist
euphoricopportunity
That's the neat part. You don't.
randomwalrus
How very racist of you to say such a hurtful thing. Somebody summon the constabulary, and have this individual beaten to death.
hotaru251
40hrs a week is acceptable if you got vacation days like in past.
Vempire
If you're talking European vacation days, then yes. If you talking American vacation days, fuck no.
HelikaformerNubisKnight9
I call for at least 30 vacation days per year (when 5 days work week) and unlimited sick days.
But to be true: I'm for a 32 hours in 4 days per week.
Revnis
That's the thing in Europe that still would be unacceptable, like entire countries take the entire month off. In addition to way more holidays and additional time off.
HelikaformerNubisKnight9
We work to live and not live to work!
Valharroth
30 would be pretty good for Europe, that gives 6 weeks off. We have 25 at my workplace.
Jonson71
Yes everyone should just have all their needs met for free. And the people providing for them should do it out of the goodness of their heart.
AShartInTheWind
Define free.
BladeTurMoiL
Sure is a cherry picked arguement you’re using. I know you cant possibly be dumb enough to not realize the current administration is cutting all these services and the money isnt going back to the people. Wonder where it goes?
Hint: the president (who was in dire financial debt) plays golf like 75% of his term so far, and is building a ballroom.
Corporate profits are up everywhere, but they’re letting people go.
Paying people shit wages, meanwhile most are dependent on government aid.
BladeTurMoiL
Oh yeah btw, grocery prices are up huge %s.
FoxyEllie
try not to make obvious strawmans
Jonson71
I'm genuinely not trolling, this argument, which I see here all the time, makes zero sense. Who would build houses if houses were free? It's backbreaking work. Who would become a doctor if all our needs are met automatically, it's decades of study.
PennysWorthOfTea
The argument of "who would do hard work without being compensated?" falls flat with even the slightest bit of examination. Right now, folks with years of experience & advanced degrees (e.g. MDs, PhDs, etc) are barely scraping by while executives are raking in it. Wikipedia--arguably the greatest compendium of human knowledge ever compiled--is almost exclusively due to volunteers. 1/2
PennysWorthOfTea
Freeing people from the necessity to meet basic needs will actually liberate them to perform meaningful work. Freeing people from the anxiety of basic needs will actually increase the number of doctors, researchers, & transformative artists. And, yes--there will still be people who collect trash & clean the sewers, however they'll actually be compensated & respected for the efforts rather than being seen as "nobodies". 2/2
Salticido
People already do volunteer work, and many people already do jobs that require lots of training for little reward (including some kinds of doctors), and COVID quarantines made it abundantly clear that a lot of people crave being productive and don't actually want to sit around doing nothing. Not to mention, a lot of people today feel really unmotivated by their work and wish their jobs did more than just make rich people richer. I think most people long for productivity and purpose.
Drachiel
You can do that if you automatically get what you *need* (basic lodging + food) but you have to work to get what you *want* (TV, internet, mobile, better food, better house, brand clothes, ball room). working bringing the difference between "barely surviving" and "living"
BigIrv5151
I'm kinda with Robin on this one. If you're able, you should work.
MightyUrto
"If you don't work, you don't eat" is one of the most evil things anyone could believe.
PennysWorthOfTea
As if a significant proportion of the population with simply sit around & "do nothing" if they weren't constantly at risk of losing their home & starving in the street. Seriously, you have to be a nigh-sociopath to think that's what humanity aspires to. Did you not pay attention during 2020? Did you not see how badly most people react to idleness? If you guarantee everyone's basic needs are met, art & science would flourish.
foreverinchains
Way to miss the point, bud.
No one should live in poverty regardless of whether or not they're willing or able to work, and the only reason anyone currently lives in poverty is because a handful of rich cunts will never be satisfied no matter how much wealth they hoard.
fgh2000
upvoted
Skywatcher16
sociopaths of a feather flock together.
fgh2000
I'd just prefer to pay less taxes
Skywatcher16
because you are a either a sociopath, or an idiot. do you like roads? parks? electrical/water/sewer grids? recall alerts that let you know not to eat tainted food or use defective products? do you like markets stable enough to run a business in, either yourself or because you shop there? how about the safety of knowing a fire department, EMTs and law enforcement are about if theres an emergency?
THEN YOU LIKE TAXES YOU BILGERAT!!!
fgh2000
can someone else pay those, I’d like to be the “free” in this scenario. Maybe you can pay my way?
MaybeIllDisappear
There is no reason other than greed that anyone should live in poverty. If you work hard, yeah you should get extra, but housing, food, and medicine should be cheap or free.
fgh2000
who's pays for the free? should you or should I? let me know
MaybeIllDisappear
First off, this country produces more food than the entire population could eat and most of it is subsidized by the government already. Providing basic food needs to the entire US population would be nothing, your taxes would already cover that and more.
phoenix0path
All. Of. Us.
It's called taxes.
The social contract exists so that no one should have to suffer to live.
If you have a problem with that, you ARE the problem.
Goatfer
Robin is talking how if you can work, it should be a living wage. But even those who can't work shouldn't be forced to live in poverty.
fgh2000
the person I replied to said free
Goatfer
Basic human needs should be met for free if that person is unable to provide them for themself.
Skywatcher16
everyone who is interested in continuing to benifit from existing in society should. if you dont like that, feel free to go be a hermit who
Skywatcher16
survives on only what you can personally extract from whatever land you bought/squat on. only clothes you personally make, from fibers you
Skywatcher16
found or grew. no food you didnt grow or barter for with goods you DID make or labor you produced. no shelter you didnt build. no tools you
DickTipPapercut
the fact that we're still requiring people to work when everything could largely be automated with some oversight and we'd have enough for everyone in the world and then some is capitalism at its finest.
Jonson71
Would we have enough coastal real estate? Or would some of us have to live in Oklahoma? Is all land equal?
doctorId
Remember when the Jetsons thought that automation would mean only having to work 2 hours a week but still being paid enough to own a home and support a family?
OneMoreLime
Capitalism is a machine that turns suffering into surplus. The people that own all the surplus take a bit of sick pleasure in the suffering...
080080
you're so wrong about this that it's actually hilarious. if the evil corporate overlords could automate everything, they would have done so already. why pay for human labor, which is subject to strikes, sick days, quiet quitting, etc, when the labor could be automated and they could keep all the revenue generated to themselves? the fact that labor still exists in such an evil system indicates that it can't be automated yet.
frosss
If they didn't need us to work, we wouldn't be working. The reason AI is being pushed so hard is execs think it's going to replace workers. The less people they have to pay, the better it is for them.
billstranger
For like 2 months. If no one is working anymore, no one is being paid. Who is buying their product/service when no one has money? It's an absolutely idiotic way to think about business. "Supply and demand" is great, but don't forget you can have all the supply in the world, and peak demand, but if you charge $10 and the average person has $0, you're only gonna get stolen from, not make sales.
andexer
How else can I show that I'm better than you? /s
BenderRodriguz1010
But what about the shareholders?! /s
DickTipPapercut
i bet they taste good with bbq sauce
BenderRodriguz1010
This guy gets it
poscduke
I hear this all the time but the vast majority of jobs can't be automated, like building construction to include plumbers, electricians, hvac, carpentry and other trades. Shipping especially trucking (though it's getting close) and most service jobs like hospitality, medical care, food preparation and service.
foolycharged
Yeah, this thread reminds me of a while back when I kept seeing in the news that ai was going to take over surgeons jobs and the whole concept was just moronic. We automated flying planes, and yet you'll notice we still have pilots in the chairs running the autopilot and on standby for when it fails. It's not that most jobs have been automated, it's that we have an incredible number of useless jobs that exist for reasons other than completing the tasks at hand.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Yeah, this argument doesn't work because it's just not true. Companies would actually love to automate everything and get rid of employees once and for all. Look how nuts they are over AI. But the fact is, it's not possible. In the west, they're already automating everything they can. In poorer countries where labour is cheap and they don't care if employees die, they don't bother. But in the west they do automate as much as possible, because it comes out cheaper.
Nebel01
i know peoples working pretty much all of thoses that love what they are doing, that still would do it if they had their need met, the only difference would be it would force employers to not be shit to their employees and provide an acceptable working environment
Salticido
I mean, we could also just live in a society where there aren't employers, every "business" is worker-owned and -managed, and money is obsolete.
Nebel01
sure, but money is useful trade tool when it not being abused by maniac, it let you trade for what you actually want instead of relying on direct trade
Salticido
If you want. Either way, it doesn't require employers.
poscduke
Some people do love those jobs, and the more independent and prestigious the more likely they are to enjoy it. Highly skilled surgeons are likely to want to use their knowledge and skills and might work for free. The hospital staffers changing sheets, even if they enjoy helping people probably wouldn't do it if they had the option. No one would clean truck stop toilets if they didn't have to
Nebel01
joke on you, nobody clean truck stop toilets already
Nebel01
and trust me on that one, i know enough nurses to know they would do it, especially in a less stressful situation, which would come from less shitty employers , no money problems and peoples around being more relaxed for similar reason which would result in lower animosity? nah changing sheets is really not a problem
nero4ty2
If you work at a computer it’s likely that your job will be automated soon, so the office manager may be gone but forklift drivers still need to show up
sofako41404
You think they can't automate forklifts?
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Really depends what you're doing on that computer. If your job requires actual thought, then AI can't do it. Or if it requires problem-solving. If you're just entering data or something like that, then sure.
Salticido
Sometimes entering data requires actual thought and problem-solving too 😬
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
I mean those mindless data-entry jobs where you're literally just copying stuff from one place to another. That's something that could be done by an AI, if you're copying from digital to digital. If you're copying off paper it's a bit different, since a human has to at least run the scanner.
Salticido
For sure, those jobs certainly exist and are already beginning to be automated to some extent. I just wanted to add that even data entry can be complicated (e.g., requires hunting down the data, interpreting the source, etc.) and thus potentially among those "depends what you're doing on that computer" exceptions.