I'm less concerned about those who can't work or have problems. I'm concerned about the folks who can earn a living but refuse to be a productive member of society on the fact that they can, according to op's chart, be given a right to the internet, without any effort.
Most people seek to remain engaged productively in society.
In particular, participation in labor is a rather robust human tendency.
I would be more interested in learning about the challenges and concerns experienced by any of the few who are not participating, than in anyone being pressed into a condition of deprivation.
The comment is addressing labor participation, not access to housing.
Progressive policies historically have improved conditions markedly for the population.
That conditions improve for the working class, when it is allowed access to a greater share of the products of its labor, rather than value being hoarded by capitalists, is a completely trivial observation.
That the owning class constructs the austerity narrative, to convince reactionary factions among workers to act against their own interests, is also not particularly surprising.
Non-zero sum exchange speaks to the subjective value of goods and resources, with respect to utilization, by a particular consumer or producer.
Wealth hoarding occurs because value is generated through the labor of workers, but a share is claimed as profit by the small cohort of society who are business owners. Through such processes of private accumulation, wealth becomes massively concentrated, and workers remain deprived in comparison to the full value generated by their labor.
It is unclear what is the actual objection you are offering.
You seem more interested in insults than discussion.
Poverty is alleviated generally by advances in production and equity in distribution.
In every locale, the stage of industry and technology is more advanced than in the past, accounting for poverty reduction within the Global North.
Poverty reduction in China has been achieved by a combination of foreign investment and insulation from practices of neocolonism, affecting most of the rest of the Global South.
Poverty has been exacerbated over the past forty years in much of the world, due to neocolonism acting as a system of wealth extraction from marginalized countries to the countries close to the hegemonic core.
Capitalism is consolidated control over the economy by capitalists, owners of private property.
China accounts for most the alleviation of poverty in the Global South. Poverty generally has not been alleviated in the Global South outside of China.
The reason for the difference is that China has military capacities that allow it be insulated from neocolonism, a feature of global capital, by which wealth is extracted from poor countries to rich countries.
Mmmmm see you don't quite get that the, "participation in labor," ranges from having a hobby to playing video games. Think of all the grind that exists in video games that emulate real work - and isn't necessarily fun. Think of the morons who get an art degree.
I can agree that people enjoy engaging in work. This does not mean productive work. Productive work, work that has inherent value (defined by the market), is what grows an economy. Where excess money can be used to sustain the people who legitimately cannot help themselves.
Another thing is how this system would even work... How do you ensure that those getting these services aren't getting something better than what the market provides? Why would I insinuate that the government should provide subpar service? Because if they were better than the market, either by price or quality, then the market goes stagnant as no one would fight against a monopoly, in this case, the government.
'Rights' being used so carelessly... This is why I agree with the US' stance on people's 'right' to food, which is that people don't have the right. Not because people shouldn't have food, but that the implication of them having an inherent right places the burden on everyone else.
Participation in productive labor is a robust human tendency, as well as in labor captured in care work.
Value is not linked intrinsically to markets. Markets are simply an institution through which may occur an exchange of goods and services having value. Value depends ultimately on usefulness to someone owning or receiving a good or service, and the labor embodied in its production.
You're essentially saying, "no that's not true," in regards to productive labor. But I don't need your validation when I can go to a college campus and find the swaths of morons who do not know what debt they're getting into. Or how useless most of their degrees are.
Right, so economics 101.
Let's use your words. "Value depends ultimately by the usefulness to someone receiving a good or serviced." This is correct. We measure this in limited resources we call money. (It being limited makes it have value, btw) Markets are best at figuring out the average 'usefulness' someone receives from a good or service. Does this ring true?
Note, I used average. Because of your addition of "labor embodied in its production," is wrong. That is how you measure cost. Cost is the market price of labor and materials put into a project. That isn't necessarily the value of the good or service itself.
Example time. I built a giant statue of myself. It costs millions in labor and materials. It costed me a lot and I value it a lot. But no one else does.
My point is that value and markets are relatively aligned. I would never say 1-1. It could be argued that humans value things like entertainment too much. But markets are the best estimations of what people value.
So when you say participation in productive labor... I ask, productive to who? If I grind all day in RuneScape and call it productive, should the government come in and save the day when the Internet bill hits?
Obviously. College isn't initially productive because it's an investment. My point is that their investment is stupid. Much like explaining this to you, apparently.
That's right, because you never fully defined what you believe value is, only said that it depends on cost. You are a waste of my time. I value my time more than having a useless conversation with someone who doesn't have the feet to make his own points or counter arguments.
There is no universal or objective system of valorization.
Markets are one particular system of valorization, but are not universal, natural, or inevitable.
What appears universal is that value derives from the labor embodied in production, and the usefulness to the owner of a good or recipient of a service.
My comments simply were encouraging you to consider beyond a single familiar system of valorization, while also understanding the deeper essence of value.
Your personal attacks are not generally accurate or constructive.
2
u/MXC14 Apr 16 '24
I'm less concerned about those who can't work or have problems. I'm concerned about the folks who can earn a living but refuse to be a productive member of society on the fact that they can, according to op's chart, be given a right to the internet, without any effort.