• Shadywack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    178
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    What the UAW is doing here is fighting for all workers. This sets precedents that ripple across all industries. What formed the UAW back in 1937 took some balls, and so does this.

    It’s not communism to fight for dignity and a living wage. We’re practically fighting for some more table scraps, but the rich are acting like we’re threatening social fabric.

    Go and get it Shawn, this is exactly what we all need right now. Support the UAW.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even China knows this. Give the hard working people a better job than mom and dad had and they won’t rebel.

    The people who are rolling in their next billion have forgotten what happens when you take that away.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      China is about to find out as well, they have something like a 30% new-grad unemployment rate, and Pooh Bear is on a bootstraps kick saying that social protections encourage laziness.

      They’re on even thinner ice than the US.

      • DrPop@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean we all know what “didn’t” happen last time students got together in protest. Whatever became of the Hong Kong protest btw?

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a good question. Last time I brought this up on Lemmy, someone said they were better off under the CCP than British rule. 🤔

    • Calavera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are in the economic industrial boom that already happened to western countries decades ago. The problem is that eventually all booms end

      • Syldon@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is just buying into accepting the current model where the rich can have it all at the expense of the poor. The model is the problem not the amount we have to distribute.

    • bloubz@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That has been the US and western Europe strategy. Give back just enough so that people don’t think they have enough to win by changing the existing order

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well nothing has happened, what is being asked of them is less than what they’ve taken. Worse case scenario is they give back some of the stolen goods.

      But this is the same as a fine for breaking the law, they made more than they lost as a result so this is all factored in.

      • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but Fain is the first democratically elected UAW leader (prior leadership was chosen by delegations and was fraught with racketeering and embezzlement) and it shows.

    • solstice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t it that same episode where Rom basically says word for word that he doesn’t support unions because one day he might own Quark’s bar and then he’ll be able to oppress people too? What a great show, some people dislike the ferengi episodes but they’re some of my favorites in the series.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          People with the same mindset as Ferengi and who don’t like to be called out for their shit.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ikr? Some people hate 'em. They’re really goofy and cartoonish so I guess I get it. Profit and Lace is pretty tough to watch. The Magnificent Ferengi is my personal favorite (Iggy Pop guest stars too, what a treat!) And I quote the Rules of Acquisition in real life somewhat regularly, heh

          • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            The first couple episodes Rom is a real dick pushing the shit downhill onto Nog but once he goes from basic greedy goblin to engineer savant the dynamic is great

            • solstice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah the Ferengi were cartoonish evil space goblins at first and weren’t very well received. They worked much better as comic relief when the writers toned them down.

              • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Quark is also a great foil to the stiff backed Federation ideals that Sisko is always preaching. It’s nice to see life on the station outside of the rules of Starfleet, and the Ferengi episodes became some of my favorites cause it’s heartwarming in a way to see them try so hard, especially Nog. Toss up between Quarks and Ten Forward

  • I Cast Fist
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I vote for wrecking the rich’s yachts. There’s even a great capitalist reason to do it: the companies that build them might make new sales! Win-win!

    • clanginator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.

      It’s like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.

      • Qwertzwertz@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person. As craftsmen, they could have improved the lives of tens of thousands in their community instead. As engineers, they could have built products serving millions.

        Not to mention the natural resources used for one person’s benefit.

        There’s nothing positive about super yachts (and mansions, private jets,…) being built. Don’t let the flow of money confuse you.

        • starclaude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          the problem is actually how the rich keep buying the houses and making the prices increase for inorganic reason making people who really needs house cant afford it while at the same time the rich keep the house they bought empty

        • clanginator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be clear my comment was intended purely as satire. I definitely don’t view the construction of yachts as positive in any way.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person.

          And then they take the money they earn and they buy shit, directly helping other people

          • clanginator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nah, directly helping other ppl would be the person who bought the yacht instead spends their money on things that enrich their community/society/their workers.

              • clanginator@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, like building public third spaces (that aren’t built around consumerism), building free housing, paying off people’s houses, paying for medical facilities, improvements to schools, public transit (or something like free mechanic services), paying off medical debt, taking care of homeless, etc.

                Billionaires are the ones with the power to change the status quo and fix so many issues with society.

                Look at what can be accomplished with just a portion of a single billionaires wealth in a single area (Mark Cuban with CostPlus). Billionaires have an ethical obligation to use their wealth for the food of humankind.

      • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.

        Smith concluded that no, it isn’t a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.

        However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I’m not sure how he’d view this case.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The argument is sloppy.

        The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.

        If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.

        The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.

            • clanginator@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

              I said “shooting holes in a water tower to make trickle-down economics work” as a reply to someone making an obvious quip. IDK if you’ve just never been around leftist discussions, but joking about how fucked trickle-down economics is isn’t an endorsement of building megayachts that wreck the environment and provide no good to society.

              Stop being intentionally obtuse, or just don’t blame others for your inability to read between the lines.

              EDIT to add: I also explicitly stated it was satire in response to the only other comment that replied to mine taking it seriously. But even their comment just seemed more like a clarification for anyone else reading, not someone actually taking my comment seriously.

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

                The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.

                • clanginator@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So then why reply to my comment with a hostile argument when there was already a thread in reply to mine which cleared up any possible confusion?

                  You can’t read satire, got confused and replied without spending the time to even read the other reply saying the same shit you said.

                  And you wanna blame satire for creating confusion.

                  If u smell shit everywhere you go, check ur own shoe bud.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.

        People who think the rich just have vaults full of money are so fucking ridiculous.

        Poor people sit on cash. Poor people hide cash in their house. Almost the entirety of any rich person’s wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.

        • Miqo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “We were very wealthy,” says Errol Musk. “We had so much money at times we couldn’t even close our safe.”

          With one person holding the money in place, another other would slam the door.

          “And then there’d still be all these notes sticking out and we’d sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”

          You are willfully ignorant.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re an idiot if you thinks fucking safe holds any real amount of money, or that one South African semi-rich person counts as any sort of evidence.

            Cash depreciates over time. No rich person keeps a ton of cash, because it means they get less rich every day.

        • Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Poor people live paycheck to paycheck, 1 disaster away from bankruptcy and absolute poverty. What the actual fuck are you taking about??

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, and a big part of that is that rather than get bank accounts, savings accounts, and any sort of money discipline, they fly blind and end up turning to terrible shit like payday loans.

            See, one of us has actually worked to help change the spending habits of low-income people and the other person gets their information from memes.

            • Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Source- trust me bro!

              That’s a pretty cool story you’ve got going on in your head there lol. You’re a fucking 🤡

                • Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  7 million out of 39 million living in poverty don’t have bank accounts. Lol, that’s your proof for your argument. And that’s not including the working poor. Wow, I don’t know what’s scarier- the fact that you think this is proof that the PoOr aRe CoNdItiOned tO noT uSe bAnKs- If OnlY thEy’D oPen Savinzgs AcCoUnts, or that you think that you “got me” with that stat. Fucking 🤡

            • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Underbanking is a problem, and so is underinvesting. Both are caused by profit motives because investors rather put in pay day loan services instead of grocery stores in historical redlined districts🤷

              But sure, blame the habits of poor people.

        • lingh0e@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, all those poor folks literally sleeping on cash under their mattresses because they don’t have to spend it immediately on things like, you know… staying alive.

          • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It boils down to poor people are poor because they don’t invest, and rich people are rich because they invest 😂 nothing else matters!

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Tell me you don’t actually know any poor people without telling me you don’t actually know any poor people.

            • lingh0e@lemmy.film
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol. Sure sure. Apparently I’ve been living poor incorrectly by immediately spending my money on things like food, shelter and childcare instead of hoarding it like some kind of Scrooge McDuck wannabe.

              You think poor people have money they don’t need to spend, so they just keep it stashed away in a shoebox or something? How out of touch are you?

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is an endemic problem with poor people, actually, because poor people are often conditioned not to “trust” banks.

                You’d know that, if you knew them.

                • lingh0e@lemmy.film
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You must be right. I’ve never lived in and among poverty. Thank you for explaining my life to me. Is there anything else I didn’t actually experience?

                • Evie @lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, cause poor people and low income people are so much more rare to encounter during a day, then a millionaire/billionaire or people in top 5%… /S

            • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The only one talking about vaults of cash is the comment i replied to 😂 what no reading comprehension does to a mfer, the “vaults of cash” is something he pulled out of his ass.

              What i am saying is that he is dumb to think rich people are rich because they invest and poor people are poor because they don’t invest.

              • jimbo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What i am saying is that he is dumb to think rich people are rich because they invest and poor people are poor because they don’t invest.

                Don’t make fun of other people for reading comprehension and in the same comment demonstrate that you failed to comprehend what you read. The guy you replied to was saying that the wealthy generally invest their money while the less wealthy generally just save it. The former earns some kind of return while the latter slowly loses value. He didn’t say anything about why anyone is rich or why anyone is poor.

                Poor people generally don’t have the luxury of investing. They don’t have extra money to invest, and if they do, they generally can’t take the chance of having their money tied up in investments when a situation might arise where they need access to it.

            • Evie @lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wow…The mask came off, huh… who else from what base is notorious for saying “Go back to (insert country here)” yeah… the mask always comes off

              Fucking right wing fascist apologists are worse than commies but that nuance may be lost on you due to brainwashed propaganda you have been consuming…

        • clanginator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Almost the entirety of any rich person’s wealth is invested, because rich people generally pay smart people to handle their money.

          Damn, maybe poor people should just hire a full-time broker and give them the $20 they can spare this month and let that smart person invest it so they’re not poor anymore 🤓

          Being poor in the US is a literal trap. It is intentional. It is exploitation. The lack of financial education isn’t the fault of poor people who grew up going to schools that could barely afford to run, and/or went to school hungry.

          And once you’re poor, it can be extremely difficult to escape, bc the system is designed to punish poor ppl. Poor ppl sit on cash bc if it’s in a bank the money they need for food might get taken away bc of some bullshit overdraft fee or similar. I know bc I’ve been poor and know poor ppl.

          Poor people aren’t poor because they don’t invest wisely enough. They’re poor bc the system is designed in so many ways to keep it that way.

          Also rICh pEoPle dOnT Sit ON tHeiR MoNey ThEY iNvEsT it

          Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it “investing 🤓” or whatever. It’s still hoarding, it’s still immoral and detestable.

          You sound like you’re 17 and just started listening to Fox Business for financial advice.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, putting billions of dollars into stocks and letting it sit there is still hoarding wealth. Call it “investing 🤓” or whatever. It’s still hoarding, it’s still immoral and detestable.

            This has no factual basis.

            You seem like you think I’m attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.

            • clanginator@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This has no factual basis.

              Yes it does.

              See I used as much logic in that response as u used in ur comment, so my answer is just as valid as yours. But since I used more logic in the comment you’re replying to, my original point still stands. Try again, lil bro.

              You seem like you think I’m attacking poor people for not having money to invest rather than making fun of people who believe the quoted statement.

              I do not give a flying fuck whether you were making fun of someone or trying to get a billionaire to see ur comment so they’d let u suck their dick, bootlicker. You’re wrong.

              Also billionaires can literally just use their stock value as cash, genius.

              Why you simp for billionaires bruh. U ain’t gonna become one.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Imagine caring about the opinions of someone who calls you a “bootlicker” for simply understanding how reality works

        • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re kidding right?

          1. The yachts are probably insured

          2. Just because they don’t literally have millions sitting in a checking account doesn’t mean they can’t liquidate some of their investments and get it in short order.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            actually putting money into the economy

            This person veliev s rich people have millions sitting in checking. This belief is widespread, and is not just misleading, it changes the entire discussion from wealth to money.

    • NaoPb@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t that what they want you to think? Throwing around words like communist and making it seem like a bad thing to share wealth?

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. Unions exist in Liberal and Social Democracies, too. They want to keep us on this Neoliberal path, because it’s so very exploitable. Unions are just a drop of democracy, but for your workplace, or sometimes renting and transit systems.

    • WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is nothing communist about that. He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership. Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

      The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy. Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers. This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is nothing communist about that.

        Seeking a new economy, based on the challenge that the current one serves the owning class, is the very essence of the communist movement.

        He’s not advocating abolishing private ownership.

        Billionaires are the owners, and they are being challenged, as well as the system that serves them.

        Businesses and workers both operate in the free market, which allows workers to advocate for their position in the market.

        No. Markets confer freedom only to those who enter them already having the more advantageous position.

        The free market doesn’t exist in a communist economy.

        You previously gave an accurate definition of communism. Markets are not specifically or fundamentally rejected by communism, even though many would wish to see their eventual abolition.

        Communism uses a planned economy, so the government strongly regulates both businesses and workers.

        Communism seeks direct control of the economy by workers.

        This eliminates workers’ leverage over employers.

        Workers have no leverage over employers, because employers already own everything. Workers have only the power to withhold their labor, though doing so carries great risk.

  • Transcriptionist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Image Transcription:

    X/Twitter post by user Teddy Ostrow @TeddyOstrow reading ‘“In their economy, workers live paycheck to paycheck while the billionaires buy another yacht… So we’re gonna wreck their economy cuz it only works for the billionaire class,” says @UAW prez Shawn Fain in Detroit.’

    Attached is an image of UAW president Shawn Fain speaking passionately at a targeted strike rally against the Detroit Big Three automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis).

    [I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why not? Megacorps and billionaires wreck the economy all the time, and exploit it for their favor.

    Why not let the poor and worker class wreck it for once.

    Set the whole goddamn thing on fire, and throw the rich into it.

  • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That is something I wonder about. Inflation makes the poor poorer but when asked, economists are like “trust us, inflation is good”.