[andrepd]

Absolutely.

>I resent spending 48 weeks a year in an office and stressing over issues that will only make the company's owners richer but won't change much for me. I say don't change much because a 2-3% raise once in a while is nice, but it's nothing in comparison to the thousands/millions extra it will make the company, while the only result for me is that I get to keep my job and do more of that.

Who wouldn't resent it? Who wouldn't resent the fruits of their labour being reaped by someone else? Who actually thinks it is fair that you work hard to make your boss millions?

We need to radically rethink our current system of wealth distribution. Propaganda and US intervention have succeeded in preventing socialism from taking off anywhere in the first world or succeeding anywhere at all. How else can the majority of people tolerate feudalism in the 21st century?

[ryanwaggoner]

Or maybe most people just don’t have such a simplistic view of the world?

People who advocate for socialism just want the rewards of capitalism without any of the risks.

[makotech222]

https://local.theonion.com/ceo-worked-way-up-from-son-of-ceo...

Yeah, we wouldn't want people being wealthy beyond belief without deserving it. I can tell that you don't know the first thing about socialism.

[ryanwaggoner]

I'm perfectly fine with some people ending up with undeserved wealth if it comes along with higher prosperity for everyone. Capitalist-leaning systems have an unbelievable track record in this regard, while socialist utopias all seem to wither and die, usually while impoverishing, starving, and murdering millions in the process.

To be clear, I'm not talking about social democracy, and I'm not talking about more mixed economies, which all developed countries have to some degree. Capitalism isn't perfect. It's horrible in many respects. Call me when you have something better, because socialism isn't it.

[makotech222]

Higher prosperity for everyone? Who are you talking about? I'm pretty sure the bottom 95% of capitalist countries are in complete poverty.

[ryanwaggoner]

In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, with poverty falling continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time. In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone. A 7-fold increase in the world population would be potentially enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth, we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty.

...

In 1990, there were 2 billion people living in extreme poverty. With a reduction to 705 million in 2015, this means that on average, every day in the 25 years between 1990 and 2015, 137,000 fewer people were living in extreme poverty.

Socialism didn't do that. Capitalism and liberalism did.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

[TheAdamAndChe]

Well seeing how most Americans haven't been getting the rewards of capitalism(wages have been stagnant since the 70's, regional inequality + healthcare + housing has made the actual COL much higher), it makes perfect sense that people would start pushing for something different.

[ryanwaggoner]

Our system isn't perfect, and capitalism overall is shit, but actual socialism somehow manages to be worse. Americans aren't clamoring for socialism.

[brokenmachine]

> Americans aren't clamoring for socialism.

In fact Americans are inexplicably voting for the absolute worst proponents of capitalist corruption.

[vfulco]

Shh, no one is supposed to know. --The 1%ers