[selfhoster1312]

Quitting is an individual action with potential adverse consequences (misery).

The political question is why despite productivity in economic terms (which i know is flawed) growing many times over, do we still have to work as much, get paid so little, and have so many unemployed people looking for a job?

Looks like without a parasitic capitalist class, we could share resources and work and have people live better lives and work less.

[exitb]

Your job being automated to the point where you no longer proform it has the same adverse consequences. Whether this could work is some economic and societal setup is irrelevant, because that's not the world we live in.

[selfhoster1312]

> that's not the world we live in

That's not a definitive conclusion. The world is constantly evolving, we just have to push it in the right direction.

[po1nt]

What are you talking about? The only reason we could work less is because we always gave way to innovation. We don't haul large blocks of ice because "evil capitalists" started making fridges. Or do you want to reinstate ice trade, just because it generated more jobs? Or ban tractors because farming by hand was made by way more people?

"Sharing resources" doesn't work. We share way too much just to keep pensioners alive and can't have kids because of that. Confiscating all the billionaire's wealth wouldn't make a dent and would destroy much more.

Not sorry for the rant

[selfhoster1312]

I'm not advocating for going back to the stone age. But if work was sufficiently shared, we could all work less. A lot of "work" is actually useless in terms of production and social use (see Graeber, Bullshit Jobs).

[po1nt]

Have you ever been in any kind of group project at school? That's not how any of this works.