this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
1300 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

5823 readers
2144 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

What if we don't want infinite growth? What about stability? Or (gasp) a population reduction so we don't destroy the planet. Have less babies. Feed the ones we have. Educate them.

[–] blackbirdbiryani@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Sure, easing into a deflating population over several hundred years is fine but tanking it and ending up with a society having to support a vastly older population ain't easy either. Better for governments to provide positive reasons to have children but there's zero chance of that.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

We're going to run into a crisis within our life time whether we like it or not. Within 10-20 years, possibly longer if legislation somehow hampers it, pretty much the entire working class will be unemployable because machine labor will be cheaper and more readily available than any human. Yes, some people will still have jobs, but not the working class.

Long before we have a crisis of too many elderly for the working to care and provide for, we are going to have a crisis of not enough jobs paying a liveable wage for one, let alone a family, because corporations are going to be able to replace large swathes of their workforces with machines that cost less to maintain per unit than minimum wage, so why would they ever hire a person?

[–] meyotch 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I just have to pont out, If you have to have a job, you are working class. It doesn’t matter if it’s a well-paying automation job, you are still working class.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Technically yes, as there are many definitions. But practically, no. Tthe commonly accepted and popular definitions break down with the working class being those without college degrees, those who'se living expenses and day to day expenses is most if not all of their income, where another common definition specifically list unskilled labourers, artisans, outworkers, and factory workers as working class.

[–] leftytighty 4 points 1 month ago

My understanding is that it's more about where people get their wealth and income. Working class primarily gets it from labour. Middle class has a mix of capital and labour income. And upper class / capitalists get it mostly from capital.

Degrees and jobs align with those but don't define them, as far as I understand it.

Then again in my mind the only distinction worth a damn is "contributor" and "parasite" and so we're all working class and we should see ourselves as aligned against the individuals and families who have enough wealth that generations of them will never need to work a day in their lives.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)