I’ve arrived at the bridge of death lol
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D7hFHfLEyk[/youtube]
If N = amount of work that needs to be done by a human and P = the number of people willing to work, then I’m saying that P will always be greater than N. Of course, by “work” I don’t mean uncompensated work. It’s not like I’m saying people will work for free for the good of society. If fact they’ll probably be paid quite a bit since the poor will be robust consumers instead of economic drags.
N is inversely proportional to technology and technology rises exponentially. If P>N was true in 1974, it’s true today and will only get exponentially more true as time moves on.
In 1930s a farmer could feed 4 people
In 1970s a farmer could feed 73 people
Today a farmer can feed 155 people.
kxrb.com/how-many-people-does-one-farmer-feed/
Not to mention we throw lots of food away and build warehouses to store it rather than mark prices down to sell it. We have 1.4 billion pounds of cheese investors.com/politics/edit … us-cheese/
Anyway, 330,000,000/155 = 2,129,032 farmers. 2,129,032/330,000,000 = 0.65% of the population are farmers. That’s not counting exports or what we destroy to maintain high prices, but a rough estimate just to show how ridiculously small the required number of workers is.
Put the tax structure back like it was in the 50 year span when america was great and then basicincome.org/
If you received $10k UBI, you could sit on your butt all day, maybe talking on ILP, or you could get a job and have that income plus the $10k. And the minimum wage would increase on its own since an increase would be required to motivate people to work, so the job you decided to take would likely pay much more than the options you currently have. The point is: you are not forced to work. You are incentivized, but not forced. This is the only way to be libertarian. And the rich guy giving up some of his pirated loot doesn’t count as a loss of liberty. And yes “pirated” is the right word to describe what’s taken without permission.
If I offered you $10/hr, you might say “Sounds good from my perspective!”, but I don’t tell you I’m making $50/hr on your labor, then it’s not a fair and informed agreement from which to garner permission to capitalize on your labor. How can you agree how to split a pie when you don’t know how big it is? Does that make sense? I know it makes sense because that used to be the case, and once my workers discovered such then threatened to go on strike because of it. I knew what I was doing was wrong, which is why I had to hide it. I justified it with the capitalist narrative of doing a service by providing jobs, but the jobs were means to rip people off. And that’s the case with most jobs: the point is to put you to work like an animal and capitalize on your labor. Some jobs are opposite and the worker is overcompensated, but most are not a deal that an employee would agree to if they were made aware of the profit that their labor generated.
And the other part of the narrative is that “they were free to do it too!” I told myself that, but no, I was dependent upon having people who didn’t have much expectation out of life because otherwise they would never have agreed to profitable terms. Most of them could only be described as neurological degenerates victim of being born on the wrong side of town. They are the seeds that fell in stony places. There’s probably no fixing them, but we can help the next generation not suffer similar fate.