|
|
|
|
|
|
by autoexec
1099 days ago
|
|
|
You're right about the importance of how we define a living wage, but it's ultimately workers that set that standard, as they are doing now, by fighting for it. You seem to recognize that it would be undesirable for workers to be forced to live uncomfortably, while at the same time suggesting that they shouldn't unionize to fight against that same outcome. I can't take "forced to eat bugs/sleep in pods" seriously, but so far the only people trying to make sure I can't own things are the companies who insist on pushing everything into the cloud and/or encumbering it with DRM. I'm all for fighting that too. |
|
|
Until it becomes a union shop, then it is the union organizers setting the standard - sitting between those in a position to pay and those seeking pay. These union bosses are surely paragons of incorruptibility with the workers' best interest driving their actions.
> I can't take "forced to eat bugs/sleep in pods" seriously...
Then you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years. These are things that have been seriously discussed in the opinion molding class quite publicly for a long time now. Remember the push for "rewilding"? That didn't go away, it just got rebadged as "15-minute cities". The WEF now openly promotes a "Great Reset" where-in everything is effectively rented. Businesses that have been trying to get people to eat their bug food have complained about packaging requirements, as nobody wants their accurately labeled products. Not to worry though, "climate change" driven legislation seems to be attacking all the alternative sources of protein. These aren't conspiracy theories, it is a plain reading of publicly available documents put out by these people for years.