• 5 Posts
  • 193 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2024

help-circle



  • Abundance comes from advancement of tech and tools, not just from labour.

    If only the “40 hours a week” people deserve to live outside poverty then this exclude many other people who are without a doubt productive for society and even capital.

    Many scholars never got money from their contributions, they didn’t even get recognition within their life. They for sure contributed positively to the society. Yet their works was not included in “40 hrs work week”.

    Housewives also provide labour without which the society can not function, they are also within this categories.

    Open source devs also don’t get paid for their work. Yet their hobby does in fact lead to productivity.

    By restricting our definition to “40 hrs work week”, we overlook many of these segments.


  • Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.

    She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.

    And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not “make money” (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)

    This is why, IMO, this distinction of “people who work” is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.





  • Doesn’t this kinda breeds complacency? By framing it as just a social construct, aren’t we indrectly telling ourselves, in order to fix gender inequality, we just need to change the social discourse? Which completely ignores the politico-economics reality.

    IMO most people already believe gender i equality is bad (atleast in west that is) but inequal gender practices still persist today.

    Not to mention the economic forces (like elon musk) uses political forces (like MAGA or AfD) to further such inequalities for their own benefits.