I posted this comment already yesterday but i’ll post it again because it’s still relevant:
Do we want to get higher wages? The obvious answer might seem “yes”. But i argue it’s not that obvious.
People should be able to live without being forced to work. When your only income is from wages, that effectively forces you to work. I think we should strive for a society where basic needs are fulfilled even without jobs.
except the national economies aren’t organized in a way to enable any form of UBI.
Yet
it’s not like governments are trying to get there when it’s not an election season though
Elections aren’t going to save you.
Personally i think that unless you’re disabled everyone should work. Where I live everyone has basic healthcare, cheap schools and there are lots of unions and workers rights so literally no one has to work more than 32 hours for a basic level of living. If youre disabled you receive wellfare so you dont have to work. Its literally a choice if you live on the streets here.
I have literally no idea why the US has such a horrible and oppressive system when it comes to workers rights, healthcare and schooling. I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s a good idea to have a two party system. I have no idea why the rich barely pay any taxes there. You have a truly corrupt and inhuman system in place.
Because your favorite authors, screenwriters, poets, bands would be homeless under what counts as “work,” or they’d not have the time, money, energy to invest in their preferred work.
I had to take early retirement last year due to a spinal injury that causes random vertigo attacks that drop me to the shop floor more than once a week. Hated like hell to do it but didn’t want to be fired as a safety risk since it would’ve prevented me from getting work anywhere else. The company was visibly relieved by my decision as well so I guess it was my time to drop off the chain, no pun intended.
It’s because we were a nation founded by violence and oppression and built on the backs of a slave race, none of which are practices we ever truly abandoned.
You have healthcare, affordable schooling, and labor unions because, wherever you are, your populace is considered a workforce, not a slave race. When your society relies on a workforce, you want them healthy so they can work longer, you want them educated so they can work smarter, and you want them comfortable enough with their salaries and their hours to feel they can afford to have kids, who will one day join the workforce.
Governing bodies in the US don’t need us healthy, smart, or comfortable. They just need us to 1) work (hence tying our healthcare to our work hours), and 2) breed (hence minimal sex education, poor access to contraception, abortion bans, etc).
They don’t need to give us healthcare (or education, or basic human necessities or rights), because as long as we’re breeding, it’s cheaper if we just die. And if that ever bothers us enough to take to the streets (which it has, many times), our local police forces are highly militarized and have no qualms about doing to us what their white ancestors did to my native and black ones (which they have, many times).
And to be clear, this isn’t meant to be a woe-is-America spiel. These are problems that we’ve had many opportunities to address over the years, but let hubris, bigotry, and plain old stupidity get in the way. This is very much a mess of our own making, so I’m not trying to throw a pity party, just addressing your confusion.
TL;DR: Violence, oppression, and slavery. The tried and true American way.
at this point, most of us were born into it.
by the time we were born, it was so entrenched nothing but horrible bloodshed could change it.
we’ve been inundated with news and media since early childhood not to rise up for that change and many of us have (until recently) been left comfortable enough that we don’t want to risk what remains.
we’ve been made to believe (by the aforementioned propaganda) that we can vote in real change. some of us still want this to be true. it’s becoming apparent this may not be the case. we’re terrified.
Every take that excludes this perspective is ableist.
Just my two cents as a person who was born and will die disabled.
If you’re capable of working, you should work. It should be a fair wage and billionaires shouldn’t exist. Our society should support those who can’t work.
I’ll tell you what. I have had to interact with some people in retail or fast food who were technically able to work, but I really wish they didn’t. I would chip in some money from every paycheck for those people to stay home, do something they enjoy. Maybe do a kind of work they are good at, but doesn’t pay much. Some people are born with the drive to be a ceo, nfl level athlete or what not. Some are born eith the drive to solve problems, help people, or what not but also to relax. And some people are born with no drive at all. They are capable of working, but the lack of drive means they will never be any good at it. So if you don’t force people to work, you will find most still will in some form. And the ones who don’t… it’s better for all of us that they don’t.
the cited comment is the most “shit firstworlders say” ever.
It’s an ideological position, yes we should be striving for a non-ableist society
what walmart was firebombed?
None — it’s a Kimberly-Clark distribution warehouse. Their products include Kleenex, Cottonelle, Scott, Kotex, and Huggies
Are they a paper products monopoly?
I’m not sure if I’d call them a monopoly, but they are a multibillion dollar company directly in competition with Proctor & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Clorox, etc
It was the big Kimberly-Clark warehouse in LA, but firebombing a Walmart is a good idea, too, as long as the people can get out. I’m not concerned with the lives of Sociopathic Oligarchs, but I don’t want workers to be hurt.
not directly.
This is an absolutely hilarious way to hear about this news.
Right? For a minute, I was like “Wait… I don’t get the joke. Is- is this just a general public announcement?”
Counter-offer: Make tents for the homeless out of landlord skins
Stat.
The world needs to move towards socialism to respond to this moment, or fall into the grips of fascism.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop.
Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining.
The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed.
So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups.
To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked.
That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
While, of course, some laws to reform capitalism can be passed, and would definitely alleviate the worst harm caused, over the long term, capitalism cannot be reformed.
Any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism.
The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.
But the Soviet Union was really oppressive!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
America needs to pivot from a Trickle Down Economy to Trickle Up Economy, or it’s going naturally pivot to Robin Hood Economics, and that often comes accompanied by revolution and guillotines. The wealthy won’t like that one bit.
The USSR was a dictatorship under a mask of communism and socialism. It was literally the opposite side of a coin, where mostly the top of a country had all the goods, while ordinary citizens were used as cheap working labor. Basically, the same thing what happens in the US, but with less freedom. It was never a true socialism/communism system in a first place.
Why would anyone in power not see that as a very clear choice?
Those in power are often there because of the donations of the wealthy and lobbyist groups. Without that money, they wouldn’t win their election campaigns. The wealthy are generally more comfortable with fascism than any kind of leftist politics, because leftist politics threaten their class interests - amassing maximal wealth and power - whereas fascism does not.
That is what i was implying, yes. Go eat some fucking salmon.
Oh, sorry, I’m autistic and sometimes I struggle to read tone and implications and things like that. Sorry for preaching to the converted <3
Go eat some fucking salmon.
Hahah! I like your style, but I’m actually a vegan bear! So I suppose I should go eat some bamboo shoots :p
but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
No you can’t. Your country has spent more than the last 200 years glorifying and giving power to whatever sociopath was crazy enough to amass the most money at the expense of everything. You really think this group of people is going to sit back without using their circle of influence to corrupt whatever flavour of socialism you come up with? If you truly believe the people you’ve willingly given the keys to will do nothing and watch the world screw them over, I’m sorry to say you’re more gullible than optimistic.
You really think this group of people is going to sit back without using their circle of influence to corrupt whatever flavour of socialism you come up with?
I’m sure they’ll try, but there’s more of us than there are of them, and we can fight them every step of the way. There are all sorts of ideas in anarchist theory of how we can mitigate these threats.
Are you saying we should just give up, and not try to build a better world, because we have no hope of defeating the ruling class? That’s just nihilism. May as well just give up and make the billionaires emperors if that’s what you truly believe.
Japan got “modernised” at the end of the Edo period, bringing about the abolition of classes and a forced transition to democracy. You would think that this resulted in commoners taking back the power, but all it really changed was daimyo adjacent people becoming politicians and samurais trading their sword for a CEO seat. No major shift in influence occurred, because social ties are immune to sudden changes in governance like this.
It’s all about who you know, and people with heaps of money know just the right people to corrupt whatever utopia you can come up with. The problem runs deeper than the system of governance, as we’ve forstered a system that strongly correlates power with sociopathic behaviour for too long to be able to just overturn it like that. I don’t want to say you should give up, but looking at things in perspective, I can’t responsibly say that’s a good plan either.
So we can learn from that, too. You’re 100% just saying “we shouldn’t do socialism because it has failed in the past”. Brother, capitalism is failing NOW. I can share examples of socialism succeeding.
What we need to do is basically have a movement to tell any politician that if they approve any military budget above 1b, we will not elect them next election. We need a movement of actually voting for sane people with sane policy. Everyone is all “crazy grandpa has a gun and hes trying to destroy everything”. Well, crazy grandpa just asked for 1.5 trillion dollars to buy more shit to mess more shit up. Don’t give him any money. If a crazy person walked up to you and said, “give me 1.5 trillion to mess everything up” no one would give them that money. Lets instead maybe invest in education? Healthcare? Social saftey nets?
That’s very intellectually dishonest of you to reduce my argument to “100% just saying ‘we shouldn’t do socialism because it has failed in the past.’” That’s what we call a strawman argument, and that’s not what I’m saying if you read what I wrote. What I’m saying is:
- The way power and influence has been handed out in the past 200+ years, is mostly giving it to who was able to get the richest.
- Getting richer than 99% of the population around you strongly correlates with sociopathic tendencies, aka not caring about your fellow humans and sacrificing everything for money.
- People with capital and influence, and people with legislative power have social ties that run at a deeper level than just “capitalism,” and a system change would not sever or alter these in a significant way.
- As long as “the influent” know the right people, they will try, and mostly succeed at, corrupting whatever new system has been brought upon.
- Even if you somehow magically imprison or wipe out all these people, which is morally more than questionable, as long as there are positions of power within your system, sociopaths will continue to seek and attain them, and the cycle will start anew.
I’m not a nihilist, I’m providing an observation based on human behaviour and our current system. I’m not saying nothing can be done about it, but oh boy you’re going to need way more that socialism. You’ll need a grassroots, global (aka, almost every country on board with it) movement, involving a complete overhaul of the education and values system across at least 100 years (to give time for people from the old world to be replaced), and at the same time have the current people in power somehow relinquish all their advantages and sit back to look at it. People who’ve been educated to believe the world is their oyster and a zero-sum game, sit down and do nothing while they see others thrive.
… how am I the one who’s unreasonable?
Edit:
OK, through the magic of using two browsers, I can now re-read your comments.
You’re right, I completely misunderstood your comment. I apologize for that. I was on my phone and not properly paying enough attention.
I actually completely agree with you. The issue is that we need to actually abolish all forms of unjustifiable hierarchy - as you perfectly put it, “as long as there are positions of power within your system, sociopaths will continue to seek and attain them, and the cycle will start anew.” This is, obviously, a very difficult task, which will undeniably require a great deal of effort. A “social revolution”, as I would put it - where not the ruling class are overthrown, but the entire vertical structure, where people are in positions of power over others.
This is actually the foundation stone of my entire political philosophy - which is anarchism. If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think.
The term “anarchy” actually comes from Greek, basically translating to “without rulers”, or “against hierarchy”.
I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism (and hierarchy) makes inevitable.
Original message follows:
I would really like to engage with you in good faith, but I’m struggling to keep up with this conversation because for some reason the comments aren’t loading, I can only reply to you through my inbox, and it’s really messing me up. Do you know what might be happening here? Kinda need to fix this to re-read our conversation, if I have been unreasonable then I will gladly apologize though. I want to be fair.
Hey, thank you for re-reading and engaging with what I actually wrote.
The one interrogation that was not solved for me is that such a change requires a tremendous amount of energy and dedication across all society’s decision-makers, and I fail to see where that energy would be sourced from when almost any forces able to institute change benefits from the status quo.
I don’t disagree that there are better theoretical systems, I just fail to understand by what miracle they would ever be realised from the starting position we find ourselves in. It isn’t just about how many of us vs how many of them it is, unfortunately. The entire world’s understanding of power dynamics, trust in money and institutions would need to shift, and after that, there’s little guarantee the same people wouldn’t come on top again to corrupt it all.
I guess my question is: how do you guard any system from human corruption, other than just honour, promises, and gentleman’s agreement?
If you make yourself a ruler and give yourself the power to stop such corruption (which fundamentally needs to be more power than it takes to instigate it), you’re effectively becoming « the good dictator », and then how can you guarantee that this amount of power will not be used for bad by yourself, or any of the people that will come after you? When power concentrates this much, it only takes one bad person to get it.
Thank you for that, this echoes my sentiment.
About technical difficulties, I don’t really know. My lemmy app doesn’t seem to be having any problems, so it may be a client-related problem.
Except with insurance they probably made money. The trick is for it to happen often enough that insurance gets too expensive.
I’ll bet you that Walmart is selfinsured, and this absolutely hits them directly.
Well insurance only pays out on the value the retailer bought their inventory for, not the sticker price. Yeah they’re getting a lot of money but rebuilding inventory and a new warehouse is probably more money. And Insurance companies might start considering underpaid employees as an insurance liability.
And Insurance companies might start considering underpaid employees as an insurance liability.
That’d truly be righteous but I suspect they’ll start expecting more surveillance, security, and fire systems instead.
Which, although they don’t improve conditions for the workers, are also expensive
And require more workers who, after a certain amount of time underpaid, might very well be too indifferent to notice certain systems were down when another one of these suckholes goes up in flames. Dunno. Could be.
Assuming it wasn’t a company owned warehouse, the landlord will probably be making an argument that their disgruntled employee makes the fire their fault.
Insurance companies too exist to make money. If their customers generally went plus, the insurance company would go out of business.
They announced they’re moving their entire operation out of CA, lmao.
Whaaaat, that’s crazy lmao
Funny, if they weren’t already planning that, seems like an awfully knee jerk reaction based on a single incident.
They probably didn’t make money. Insurance won’t cover the retail value of unsold product, just the cost to make it. The building owner can get replacement cost for the building, but still loses out on rent.
The insurance company will raise rates to compensate for the payment, but it’s probably enough to hurt them for a quarter too.
Maybe, or maybe sales have been shitty and instead of product sitting on the shelves this let’s them write stuff off and pocket cost of materials.
Just saying there’s more to it than what it would mean to you or i if we had all our eggs in one basket and had to count on an insurance payout to keep above water. It’s likely not a windfall for them, but i wouldn’t be surprised if one warehouse fire is much more than a line item in a meeting or two, or even good news for some department or other if they were overextended in stock or something. A second or third big loss like that, though, would probably be required before anyone important is motivated towards any kind of inspection based on the bottom line though.
If it were profitable to burn down a warehouse, there’d be a whole industry around it
If you’re in the warehouse building industry, them burning down can be very profitable…
Is that a lack of fire suppression equipment? Insurance won’t like that at all. 😃
I dunno. I think that insurance will usually only cover Replacement Value, so if it cost them $20 per item and they sold it for $25, they could only claim $20. Then compounded with failure to meet contracts and updated cost of production (may cost $21 to make now) I doubt that they made money. You’re right that the cost of insurance is where the real hurt will be - see ship insurance in the Strait
We’ll there are lots of kinds of insurance, a manufacturing and distribution company isn’t going to have the same insurance you buy as a homeowner. I would expect they are covered for whatever they calculated into their cost/risk contract?
That said, i maybe know enough to know most of what i don’t know, but far from inside into on the topic.
They are probably “self insured”
Certainly could be, and doubtful that they are fully insured against all contingencies… Possible they are underinsured against for intentionally, since they could conceivable think it’s low enough risk that it’s cheaper to allow a loss even as big as this to fall under operating losses for rare or occasional incidents like this.
Once a company is big enough even subjectively huge losses are simply a calculated risk. Do you pay a million dollars a year for 10 years to subsidize something that might cost 10 million dollars that only happens every 20 years, or do you bank on it not happening and write it off as a bad quarter if it happens?
Way more goes into those calculations than one might think, and if they’re self insured there’s just a budget item that takes a hit for this and someone gets chewed out it fired for being the one that gambled this way… While someone else loses a promotion if they signed off the other direction and paid for a million dollar policy they didn’t need.
Insurance is all mostly the same regardless of type. You aren’t going to find a company willing to take the counter party risk of you losing a claimed retail value of a product, especially a commodity. If it was collectables or bespoke crafts then it would likely be different.
Sounds like you’re more familiar with the industry than i am, but my understanding is that insurance policies are written based on what you want to cover and the value is reflected in the premiums. Companies often have an assumed product, returns and stale inventory loss calculated in. Possibly just recuping costs for ‘all’ inventory could be a plus for the bottom line, especially if there were anything like a rider for opportunity costs. The building itself could have been out of step on depreciation and now moved up with a more modern facility in planning.
May not be the same situation but plenty of business owners have considered it a windfall having insurance pay out on replacement costs for things they you weren’t utilizing and an opportunity to put up a bigger shop and roll the payouts into more modern supplies and equipment rather than gathering dust on sunk cost stuff they never would have gotten their money out of otherwise.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the insurance industry is the underlying problem?
Oh, for sure that’s part of the problem, they definitely have their own issues, but they are more like a layer. Insurance itself isn’t a bad thing, but like basically ever industry they suffer from greed and loopholes too.
It’s not like the CEO will have to pay for this…
No, but the people of LA will end up paying for it with higher product prices while they recover the supply chain.
This was in Ontario (in Cali), not LA. And either way, I think they’d be fine with higher prices on toilet paper if it means everyone gets paid a living wage.
Oops, replied to wrong comment 🤦🏻♀️
They will be paying higher prices and the wages will be the same.
No one wants to hear you trying to shut revolutionary action down before it even begins. Stay in your lane. Workers in the late 19th and early 20th century did this all the time every time the boss got too greedy, if not going to their house and beating them to death in front of their family. Worker’s rights only exist because that is the alternative.
ah yes, the firekeeper
Tell that to the now jobless people
Aren’t something like over 50% of walmart employees on foodstamps? At least now they qualify for unemployment benefits.
Depends.
The warehouse operator will claim it on Insurance so they are not out of pocket.
Insurance will sue the person who started the fire and can never pay off the debt so the debt will be written off after a decade of near to no payments and get a healthy tax deduction for it.The only person to loose out will be the workers who are now out of a job, the tax payer who receives less taxes paid due to the write off and the loss of sales tax.
Jesus Christ I’m tired of people not understanding what a write-off is.
It’s a reduction in taxable income, not a tax bill. If your tax rate is 20 percent and you write off a $100 loss, your tax burden is reduced by $20, resulting in a net loss of $80.
You can’t just make massive losses go away with a write-off.
It’s almost as daft as people thinking they’ll lose out by going into a higher tax bracket
The messaging value is infinite, nonetheless.
I read that they turned off the fire suppression system to try to avoid damaging inventory while fire fighters tried to put out the fire.
Perhaps there’s a chance that the insurance company will try to use that to avoid paying off the claim.
Correction: The arsonist set some small fires, which triggered the sprinkler systems, which had firefighters come to turn it off and try to prevent water damage.
They then set about 4 bigger fires away from any prying eyes with the sprinklers turned completely off, which spread so fast that the firefighters present declared it a lost cause and called for reinforcements.
Interesting. I wonder if the exact method may become common knowledge, helping force Walmart to consider paying a living wage…
The trick is to keep doing it, making it too expensive for insurance to continue covering it, and denying the company insurance.
The company is out a whole bunch of product and is down a warehouse to store it. It’ll affect their distribution efforts negatively.
Exactly, people act like the ones who consider paying a living wage too much skin off their nose won’t flinch if suddenly a massive distribution center in a large city’s profit vanishes overnight. That’s lots and lots of impact to the bottom line lol
funny thing about insurance. they don’t like to pay. they really don’t like to pay when incidents are avoidable.
if this continues to happen, it will become a metric that liability companies will begin to track.
if employers are underpaying their staff, the insurance companies will increase the premiums since the management of the company is a high liability to underwrite. that or we’ll start to see underwriters drop contracts entirely because of the high risk low reward.
It’d honestly be hilarious to watch the stand-off between massive insurance companies and massive retail conglomerates go down. Who will emerge victorious as the ultimate capitalist greed champion~! Lmao
deleted by creator
