That’s exactly why the number of farmers keeps reducing under capitalism. In socialism, you can get to democratically decide how much people are paid depending on the actual needs of the economy.
No, mate, I’m obviously not suggesting a return to feudalism. I’m suggesting that if humanity needs more people allocated in agriculture, it should allocate more people in agriculture.
Allocate doesn’t have to be through violence, it can be through incentive. If farmers made twice as much as stock traders and worked 30h a week there would be plenty more.
But what if you can’t find enough people to do farm work? A lot of people work on farms now because they don’t have much of a choice. And if you could do easier work but be paid the same as you would on a farm, why not take advantage of that?
With modern farming, 10% of the people can now produce enough food for everyone. And if everyone had equal income instead of the top 1% syphoning off half the wealth, we could globally support a middle class lifestyle by everyone working 20 hours a week, the same amount that hunters and gatherers “worked”.
What if you can’t find more than 800 million farmers?
300 years ago 90% of the planet were farmers. Surely you can find enough people.
Not if everyone is paid the same. Why do hard farm work if you don’t have to?
That’s exactly why the number of farmers keeps reducing under capitalism. In socialism, you can get to democratically decide how much people are paid depending on the actual needs of the economy.
300 years ago, people were forced to farm for a lord.
So are you suggesting a return to feudalism?
No, mate, I’m obviously not suggesting a return to feudalism. I’m suggesting that if humanity needs more people allocated in agriculture, it should allocate more people in agriculture.
Allocate? People should be forced to farm?
You’re right, that’s not feudalism, that’s slavery.
Allocate doesn’t have to be through violence, it can be through incentive. If farmers made twice as much as stock traders and worked 30h a week there would be plenty more.
It was already established at the beginning of this conversation by the person who started this chain that everyone would have equal pay.
I’m not that person, I reject equal income for every job.
If you want to change the subject in the middle of a conversation, you might say so ahead of time.
Then there’s a problem. However we somehow manage to employ a few billion people currently.
Those few billion people are currently not paid the same as an accountant to do much more demanding work.
We’re talking about food production.I misunderstood you. Have more people doing farm work, that way we have enough food and individual farmers don’t have to work so hard
But what if you can’t find enough people to do farm work? A lot of people work on farms now because they don’t have much of a choice. And if you could do easier work but be paid the same as you would on a farm, why not take advantage of that?
We already have people working lots of hours doing jobs they might not want to do.
The question was could we reduce the number of hours people work and still have enough food
I thought everyone was also going to be paid equally.
I didn’t even mention pay
The comment chain before you entered into it:
https://lemmy.world/comment/11628981
So equal pay was already part of the discussion before you joined it.