• Krackalot@discuss.tchncs.de
    158·
    11 months ago

    I see you like things that work. We’ve decided that we’ll break it, and sell you the solution. We call it service.

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.worldEnglish
      741·
      11 months 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
        361·
        11 months 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
          15·
          11 months 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.

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              11·
              11 months ago

              I think they’re worse then that though. They attempt to manipulate and influence. Graffiti is just kind of there. Advertising attempts to look like its just there. All so it can actually pull tricks on you. Its a messed up industry.

              After all the ad industry is what spawned climate denialism and also spread confusion between cigarettes and cancer among other issues. Issues that we have to be convinced of otherwise we might actually make a better societal choice. Hell The grandfather of modern advertising Edward Bernays leveraged what he know of human nature and sub consciousness to build this industry.

              Sure almost all ads are benign individually. But as an industry they’re pretty evil. Hell if it wasn’t for ads, we wouldn’t have lost the internet to the shit show it is today. All the identity stealing, data collection and propaganda machines were spawned because we ignored the growing cancer that is online ads.

              When I grew up there was a big push to reject ads and corporate spread. Even sub cultures like punk was focused on rejecting that growing bullshit. Then it all stopped. Like the ads won and now you’re the insane one if you say that advertising is a major issue in society today. Now every kid wants their own sponsorships and some do get it.

            • RQG@lemmy.world
              3·
              11 months ago

              There actually is paid graffiti. Most that I’ve seen looks absolutely awesome. It’s insane what a graffiti artist can do when they got plenty time and don’t have to watch out to not be caught.

              • Zeozulu@lemmy.world
                3·
                11 months ago

                You should check out Wynwood Walls if you ever find yourself in Miami, Florida. Blocks of amazing street art.

    • VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
      26·
      11 months ago

      Hmm, sorry my associate was meaning “temporary solution”, about every year you will need a new one. And we are so generous that if you buy two years in advance we will give you a 10% rebate and a big ole sticker with our brand in bold colors on it so you can give us free publicity.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    731·
    11 months 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
      25·
      11 months 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
      20·
      11 months 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
        6·
        11 months 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
        3·
        11 months 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
    699·
    11 months ago

    But have you considered the following:

    Capitalism good because freedom and innovation.

    Bet you feel dumb now.

      • lorty@lemmy.ml
        201·
        11 months ago

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

        • JoShmoe
          6·
          11 months ago

          What! You mean I can’t make new things or grow because of financial predators?

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      1·
      11 months 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.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      11 months ago

      The thing about capitalism is that it DOES promote freedom and innovation. The problem is that continuous innovation is rarely profitable so companies generally won’t bother innovating after a certain point and the text on the reverse side of the freedom coin is “free from consequences”

      Capitalism is like… a good start to a much better economic system we haven’t figured out yet.

      • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        You’re not at all wrong. The problem is now we’re all so “bought in” (heh) to capitalism, and the power it has established its so entrenched, that the idea of iterating on it has become so close to literal blasphemy as makes no odds.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    496·
    11 months 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
      27·
      11 months 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…

      • fruitSnackSupreme@lemmy.world
        35·
        11 months ago

        There are a loooot of extra words in there, that seem unnecessary. I’ve read pages and pages now, and it’s just repeating meaningless words without reaching a conclusion. I have no idea what it’s trying to convey.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      114·
      11 months 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

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          1·
          11 months ago

          That’s called a cooperative, they exist. You share both the profits and the risks of the enterprise. Not all enterprises succeed. Also, some of the men need to be the managers, accountants, sales etc. It’s not just about the factory workers.

          Otherwise, more indirectly, they could be the shareholders of the company. Some companies even use shares as payment for their managers and top employees in order to encourage them to improve the profits of the company.

          Otherwise they could just be both the owners and the only people working at a company. If the machine ends up generating lots of profits, they could all ten decide to retire and live off those profits while hiring an eleventh person to operate the machine, or they could reinvest in the company, buy even more machines, hire more people and bring in even more profits, like a complex game of cookie clicker.

          Choose the one you prefer and try making it a reality if you want that.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        78·
        11 months ago

        I hope for your sake that when the factory workers can’t afford to feed their kids and they drag you from your home and try to beat you to death in front of your family they find that argument compelling.

        • Rinox@feddit.it
          1·
          11 months ago

          I’m one of the ten men, I’m just a worker like anyone else here, I can just use the little grey matter I have to try and understand the world and look at it with more objective eyes, instead of killing anyone who disagrees with me.

          Fucking fascist pos. If you want to kill families go to Russia or Israel and look at how fun it is.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        71·
        11 months ago

        Maybe the machine also does it with less waste and more consistently, the same reason woodworkers make jigs for complex cuts or identical parts.

        • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
          2·
          11 months ago

          Still investing and taking recurring upkeep costs for something that may or may not yield more income.

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    361·
    11 months ago

    I created a new email service that prevents spam and organized your email. If it works out and I become successful, I can imagine Google trying to buy it, and if I say no, all of a sudden Gmail starts having issues receiving mail from my service. Gmail and Exchange together share about 70% of the business email market, so they can destroy smaller competitors if they aren’t willing to sell. Yay capitalism!

  • VantaBrandon@lemmy.world
    18·
    11 months ago

    1995: Welcome to the internet, check out these awesome stupid websites 2023: Here have an ad, after you subscribe, and accept cookies, and sign your life away to a terms of service written in alien legalese

  • DreamButt@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    11 months ago

    My favorite thing about this comment section is the ratio of comment score and comment length

  • fogetaboutit@programming.dev
    114·
    11 months 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.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    722·
    11 months 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.networkEnglish
      21·
      11 months 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.

      • BurningRiver@beehaw.org
        6·
        11 months 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.networkEnglish
          1·
          11 months 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
            11·
            11 months 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.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          11·
          11 months ago

          Both of these things are happening because housing homeless people and feeding hungry people just aren’t profitable.

          Actually, under our free market system, people eat like kings even when they have no money to buy food.

          I’ve been homeless and I’ve been on food assistance. In both cases I ate plenty of food provided voluntarily by people who … just like the idea of feeding people.

          No centralized system is necessary to achieve that. Capitalism is so productive that we have food coming out of our ears. I find it kind of interesting that as a capitalist nation where supposedly there’s a price tag on everything, there are copious resources freely available.

          It’s not because free stuff is the central ethos of capitalism. It’s because capitalism produces so much wealth that the tiny sliver we are willing to part with for free is still beyond the total production of the non-consensual economic systems.

      • TheBeege@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        Thank you for taking the education angle. I’d like to add another perspective for folks’ benefit. I’m not 100% sure it’s correct, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

        Your labor has some value. Ideally, you should be paid a corresponding amount of wealth to the amount of value you generate through your labor. So you do $20 worth of work and get $20 worth of money. This is the ideal.

        But how much labor is worth $20? Capitalism takes advantage of this ambiguity. The capitalist, e.g. a business owner or investor or similarly positioned person, pays you $19 for that $20 labor and pockets the remaining amount as profit. Sure, the capitalist likely provides some amount of leadership and direction, which is labor with value, but their compensation vastly exceeds the value they generate. This is why you see CEOs getting >300x the pay of their employees. The labor of these CEOs is not worth that much. One person’s labor literally cannot be worth that of 300 people. (Engineers may pipe in on that point, but please realize you’re in the same boat.)

        If you see capitalism from this perspective, it makes sense why you would be angry. You’re literally getting short-changed for your effort. Not cool

        So what’s the alternative? Well, there’s a bunch. Personally, I like the idea of employee-owned companies. This way, you get the advantage of pooling people’s resources, and any profit can be invested back into the company to generate more wealth for its employees or be held onto in case of a downturn. Both are better than a CEO’s pocket.

        One issue is capital investment. Starting a company is expensive, and many companies take a long time to become profitable. If every company had to bootstrap, we’d see much fewer successes and much slower progress. I’m not exactly sure how to solve this, yet. Would love to hear folks’ ideas

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          1·
          11 months ago

          This point is even stronger if you look at property rights instead of value. The workers in a capitalist firm jointly receive 0% of the property rights to the produced outputs and 0% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs while the employer receives 100% and legally owns the produced outputs and legally owes the liabilities for the used-up inputs. This is a violation of the moral principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        22·
        11 months 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.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          1·
          11 months ago

          This touches on the concept of an inalienable right, which is a right that the holder cannot give up even with consent because to give up that right would, in effect, put the holder in the legal position of a non-person contradicting their factual personhood. Some rights that are recognized as inalienable in many countries are political voting rights and the right to a lifetime of labor. A free market does not require that all human rights be alienable

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          21·
          11 months 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.

          • nooneescapesthelaw@lemmy.ml
            11·
            11 months ago

            The means of production are not entirely owned by a seperate class nor is the barrier to entry for many industries so high that it is entirely impossible for the average joe to enter.

            Sure some industries are nigh impossible to get into, like pharmaceuticals for example, there are much bigger industries that have lower barriers like machine shops (which are really medium entry but you can scale them), and manufacturing via 3d print hubs.

            Not to mention aoftware development which is a fucking wonder when it comes to potential money vs barrier to entry.

            Certain construction contractors and engineering consulting firms can be opened up with fairly low barrier to entry.

            I’m sleepy so my replies may not seem very coherent so tell me if you don’t understand what im saying

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              2·
              11 months ago

              Look up how much debt the average US citizen is in and tell me what low barrier to entry industries they can break into

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        28·
        11 months ago

        Then you should demand the government stop interfering with the free market for housing, or at least minimize the interference.

        Houses are super expensive because they’re in short supply. They’re in short supply because there are numerous laws constraining what can be built. For example someone might see profit in building a complex of 100 apartments, but the zoning says that land can only contain houses on half acre lots. So where you could have maybe 150 people living, instead you get 6 people there.

        Supply is artificially constrained, and so prices go up. We desperately need a free market for housing.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          7·
          11 months ago

          Theyre in short supply because of artificial scarcity, which benefits the people who own and rent land. The government loosening building regulations would not fix the fact that it is more profitable to create artificial scarcity.

          Also you’re pretending like the government is in opposition to landlords. The leech class owns the government, that is why the term “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” or alternatively “democracy of the bourgeoisie” was invented.