• killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Them: this is pretty good right? And affordable too!

      Me: yeah it’s decent, don’t touch anything

      Them: we’ve put in ads

      Me: what? I don’t want ads, wtf

      Them: bro, totally have you covered. No ads for $12.99 a month

      Me: arr matey, don’t worry yerself 🦜🏴‍☠️

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is why I felt like the best thing we all could do is reject every ounce of advertising we could. Marker up all the billboards. If you’re watching a video and x3 3 minutes ads play, Leave comments about how the product gave you a bad rash. Make it so all these companies remove themselves from spaces we enjoy. It would also help get rid of the fucking content creators trying to be a copy of the latest and greatest channel but instead waters down the internet with the 10000000 clone of the latest and greatest

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

          I agree. I also think ads do influence us way more than almost anyone would believe or admit. Why else would companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ads without batting an eye. Many products cost as much or less than their ad campaign cost to make.

          So I try to avoid ads as much as possible. I haven’t seen or heard an ad in a long time aside from billboards and posters which are basically impossible to avoid.

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

    We beat scarcity. We’re up to our eyeballs in labor-saving technology. We just left people in charge who cannot imagine using it to save labor.

    • PorkRollWobbly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s about control. They don’t want to lose that control. They don’t deserve that control. We need to take control back.

    • ashe@lemmy.starless.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, automation shouldn’t kick some people out of jobs and leave others just as overworked as before, it should automate things that don’t absolutely need humans and just decrease the workload of (currently) irreplaceable people so that more people can work as much as one did before and still get the same salary.

      Hell, unemployment as a whole should not exist in the modern era. If there’s “too few jobs”, decrease working hours and increase wages accordingly so the total monthly/yearly/whatever pay is the same. And if there just physically aren’t enough resources to accomodate so many people having decent salaries (which is absolutely not the case right now), then we should start talking about overpopulation.

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And if there just physically aren’t enough resources to accomodate so many people having decent salaries (which is absolutely not the case right now), then we should start talking about overpopulation.

        Don’t blame overpopulation, blame the C-levels who think they need to take home 500k+ a year salaries.

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is as long there is no national wide law that forces companies to do so one would have much higher costs employing 2 people half time for the same job as 1 full time (with unpaid overtime of course as a bonus). And a Business that can’t compete won’t exist long. Or rather nobody even tries it because only greedy people are getting in high power positions for some reason.

  • lorty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    But have you considered the following:

    Capitalism good because freedom and innovation.

    Bet you feel dumb now.

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mhh yes freedom through capitalism. I love the freedom Apple gives me over their device that I bought but don’t own. Or when Samsung locks devices in mexico because they can and people in mexico dare to buy used phones.

      • lorty@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s sarcasm friend, I know capitalism is basically the opposite of that.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I’ve made a machine that does the labor of 10 men!”

    “You’re going to still pay the other nine, right?”

    You’re still going to pay the other nine, right?

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So the ten men can all do a tenth of the labor now right?

      Oh you’re going to fire nine, cut the tenth’s pay, and make him work even longer hours, and keep the vast majority of the profits for yourself, got it. That’s fine too I guess…

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “I’ve made bought a machine that does the labor of 10 men!”

      “You’re going to still pay the other nine, right?”

      “Why? I bought it to get more of the money to myself. Why would I pay for something and get nothing in return? Why would I just lose money for no reason?”

      Seriously though, the dynamics are pretty clear, there’s no investment without the expectation for extra profit (even for a state. Invest in a new railroad with the expectation of higher economic activity and therefore more taxes). Otherwise it’s just charity

  • fogetaboutit@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unregulated capitalism that made worse by the lack of QOL improvements by the govt is what made these new shitty electronics and tools profitable.

  • Flumsy@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Inventor: invents something Capitalism: rewards him

    Inventor: invents something communism: *cricket noises"

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Inventor: invents something Capitalism: rewards him

      Inventor invents something: capitalism has them pay to be an inventor as they are probably a grad student and then sells the patent for a pittance to a corporation they are friendly with

      Inventor invents something or fails and has to try again: communism gives them free Healthcare, education, housing and food.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As we sit in a capitalist society surrounded by incredible technology zero people could afford ten years ago.

    Yeah capitalism. Always ruining everything 🙄

    • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In case you want the good faith counterargument (I know, I know, socialist wall of text):

      I’d be willing to bet you have a different definition of “capitalism” compared to socialists. For most people, capitalism is just trade, markets, commerce, etc. None of that is incompatible with socialism (broadly speaking). When socialists talk about capitalism, they’re referring, specifically, to private ownership of capital. It’s not the buying and selling, it’s that ownership of companies is separate from labor.

      We don’t owe technological development to capitalists, we owe it to engineers, scientists, and researchers. We owe art to artists, performance to performers. Socialists want those people to be the primary beneficiaries of their own work, not someone who may or may not even work at a company, but whose wealth means they can profit off of other people’s labor by virtue of owning the property those people need to do their jobs.

      And you’ve probably been bothered by enshittification in one form or another. Some product or service you like has probably gotten worse over time. That’s not a decision made by the people who take pride in their creation, or the laborers who want long-term security. It comes from the capitalist class that doesn’t really give a shit about any of that, they just want quarterly profits, long-term survival be damned. That’s capitalism, as the meme was getting at.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing is, that separation of capital owner and worker that you’re referring to is the arrangement people come to when given the freedom to choose their arrangements.

        To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.

        Turns out, many people would rather have a steady job than be in business for themselves. I’ve done both, and I see the merits of both. Right now, I choose to work for a huge corporation. As long as I show up I get paid. That’s working well for me.

        What you’re referring to as the laborers getting the benefit of their labor is something that’s already permissible in a free market, and it happens a lot. I was a freelance software developer for many years. I also had a business building and selling easels. And cookies. And smoothies, on a subscription model. You read that right: smoothie subscriptions.

        So while it may seem that my definition based on free markets, and your definition based on the separation of ownership and labor, are different definitions, I see them as the same thing.

        Or maybe, to be precise, free markets lead to capital accumulation and when capital accumulates beyond an individual’s ability to work it themselves and they hire someone else to work it, capitalism begins. So maybe free markets lead to capitalism by your definition, as a state of wealth distribution and a set of working relationships.

        The real key point is that this set of relationships you call capitalism, is the natural result of people being free to do as they see fit.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To me capitalism is defined by free markets. A free market is one in which the economic relationships are consensual.

          If you think a system where the means of production are owned by a class of people and another class of people must sell their labor power in order to survive (the definition of capitalism according to Marx) is full of consensual economic relationships I worry about your definition of consent.

      • BurningRiver@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can take this further, and discuss how many empty homes are owned by corporations that are sitting empty, along with how many homeless people there are in the richest country in the world. Or how much food is thrown away while people remain hungry. Both of these things are happening because housing homeless people and feeding hungry people just aren’t profitable.

        That’s my main problem with American capitalism. Along with capital owning our politicians and passing anti-competitive laws designed to allow the ones at the top to stay at the top unchallenged. That’s probably a different discussion though. The “Free Market” is a myth.

        • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Absolutely. While I can be convinced on markets for some things (with regulation to protect consumers and prevent monopolies), it completely falls apart in others. Necessities absolutely should not rely on free markets because capital holders hold an extortionate amount of power, most people have little to none, and if it’s more profitable to let some people die, then the profit motive will let those people die.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Necessities must rely on free markets because free markets are the only mechanisms productive enough to cover those necessities.

            Health care, education, and housing are three markets that we have attempted to control on the basis that they’re necessary so we shouldn’t take any chances.

            As a result, health care, education, and housing are ultra expensive and scarce, and major sources of stress and worth for people.

            But far more fundamental than any of those, and hence capable of producing far greater suffering when lacking, is food. Food is a much more free market than health care, education, and housing, and as a result food is abundant and cheap.

            The constantly-driven message that capitalism cuts people off from things is deep within our brains. And it makes sense: you imagine someone wanting to eat and not having money and they don’t eat and that’s a horrible thought. But it’s not what happens. We buy and sell food all the time, and we also give enormous amounts of food to people for free. Heck we just had an annual ritual last night based on giving people food. I flew a sign once that said “food only please” and I ate very well. Like, people saw that sign and went to buy me a $50 steak then came back to give it to me.

            All I’m saying is: please just try and differentiate between the things that are mostly handled by free market, and the things that are centrally controlled, and then ask yourself what is abundant and what is scarce.

            I think you’ll find that capitalism gives more away as an afterthought than other economic systems even produce in total.