[zemo]

> It is extremely harsh. But life is harsh.

Oh please. We don't live in the forest, we don't scrape the dirt for nuts and berries, we live in modern industrialized societies with extreme concentrations of wealth. Life is not innately harsh due to uncontrollable circumstance; modern life is harsh because of the greed of corporations like Amazon and the indifference of comments like yours. In a modern industrialized society, there is no legitimate reason for laborers to work torturous 60 hour weeks. Scores of countries have banned these sorts of working conditions but we turn a blind eye to it because at the end of the day the software industry is utterly indifferent to the harm that it is doing to the rest of the population. We've seen labor riots and civil unrest going back hundreds of years to protest these sorts of labor conditions. These aren't random, unavoidable forces of nature: these are the cruel practices of an industry that treats humans like nothing more than numbers to be optimized.

[token_throwaway]

Please, find an example of a better system in a stronger economy.

[zemo]

why? You're not going to be convinced no matter what I say, because the challenged as posed is a pure trick. Both "better system" and "strong economy" are multivariant. So long as I say "in [place] that has laws mandating [some labor condition], they have [some value higher] in [some dimension]", and you will say "but in [some other dimension] they are [worse]". No matter what case is presented, you will refute it by any means that suit your argument to keep your own already-held conclusion that the profits of the few justify the subjugation of the many. So I could click around to various labor laws and economics statistics and say things like "Denmark's Working Environment Act dictates a standard work week of 37 hours and more than 48 hours a week and they have a higher GDP per capita and their national debt is 39% of GDP compared to the uk's 89% of gdp and they report higher levels of happiness" and you might say something like "yes but their taxes are higher and their life expectancy is shorter and also open-faced sandwiches are bad". There's no one metric to define "better system" or "stronger economy", so the challenge as posed has no merit. So long as you are looking to justify the stance you already have to yourself, you will.

Really, I cannot convince you of this point based on evidence alone. I can only tell you this: I am literally disgusted by your stance and I would never want to work with you or for you, and I think that society as a whole will start to see the software industry as a force of evil, moreso and moreso with each passing day, so long as your stance is the norm.