If you don't want to work for someone else, then start a business. If you don't want to work at all, then figure out how you're going to live. No one is forcing you to do anything.
How about not exploiting people?
> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist?
Seems to work for the very wealthy, celebrities, and so on. Why, precisely, isn't this acceptable for everyone?
I'm not against people working. I'm against the wealthy callously exploiting people for grins while they, I dunno, race into space?
Who says they're being callously exploited? Because some company's founder now has hundreds of billions, that entitles random warehouse workers to share profits?
As for how you're paying for the wealthy, there are many ways. You're paying for the US government to negotiate with other countries to change their local laws either directly or via treaties to create a similar regulatory environment globally. You're also paying for externalities, like what happens with a fly ash lake or manure lagoon overflows, or the consequences of air pollution.
Sure.
1) Look at financial crisis of 2008 and the banks bail out. I have always been taught there is no such thing as a free lunch in economics. Well, apparently you can overleverage yourself, profit insanely on it and when it finally goes tits up, you cry a bit and yell "too big to fail". I have always been taught that risk is the basic principle of capitalism. If your idea or product is bad, no one gives you money for it, you run out of money and go bankrupt. Obviously not if you are a bank or military contractor (looking at you, Boeing).
2) One of the biggest company in my country, owned by our current prime minister Andrej Babiš... oh sorry, it is owned by 2 trust funds which are indirectly owned by Babiš. Anyway, that company is currently asking for 123 million CZK in subsidies. This is a company with a turnover of 161 billion and 3,8 billion CZK profit. Why are they asking for subsidies? Can't they use ~3,24% of their last year's profit?
3) Continuation of previous point, except in US terms. You can strong arm government into giving you subsidies, otherwise you are gonna leave the city / state / country and it's gonna lose jobs. See here for examples: https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents
One of the biggest recipients is Tesla. On this note I find it absurd that tax money collected from normal people is paying for a billionaire's wet dream. Notice how I said normal people. Because the rich have ways to steal... damn, sorry - evade... dang, I did it again. Avoid taxes is what I meant. https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-t...
4) Look at coronavirus V-shaped recovery. It was apparent airlines are gonna be in a bit of a trouble, becaues of the... oh yeah, the global pandemic which put lockdowns in place. Anyway, airlines bought back stock and then asked for bailouts. Which they of course got. https://www.dallasnews.com/business/airlines/2020/03/18/amer...
I have stopped caring for explaining how you are paying for the very wealthy. If these examples above didn't sway you, nothing will.
? If there is exploitation at large, it's the people reading this that are doing the exploitation by leveraging against workers paid 'barely survival wages' in developing countries will crying about 'not being engaged at work' while earning 10x the global income average doing work that is actually intellectual, whilst the global average worker toils at something generally menial and more classically work.
The modern world is an utter utopia relative to the life of almost any person living at any point in history, if you're reading this, you're living at a higher standard of living that most Kings and Emperors. Probably higher than even the richest people in the world just two generations ago.
Our civilization and high standard of living requires 'work', which fall upon us to do, and whether it is 'engaging' or not is mostly besides the point.
Most companies are made up of regular people doing regular work even at the upper layers, most companies are small or mid-sized and execs. are definitely not rolling in cash, there's actually a very thin slice of people earning truly outsized incomes.
It's ok to vent and be frustrated ... but it's also little bit disturbing to read some of the commentary here.
Yes?
> Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
> No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
> Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
> Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
> Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
> etc.
> https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
>Yes?
Surely you understand the logistical problem this brings: if you get given free shit, there must also be a party who is giving free shit. Let's say you live on an island with just one other person. You are both entitled to free shit, but somebody has to put in the work to get the shit. Should the other person work to get his own shit and your shit, or should you work to get your shit and also his shit?
Where is the shit going to come from, in a way that doesn't require slavery for others?
For example, how can an all-you-can-eat restaurant stay in business if they let everybody eat as much as they (rationally-economically) want to eat, and labor has to be paid? If food is abundant, then the cost of each individual patron's meal is negligible and it becomes a question of whether enough people come through the door to pay for labor.
Your problem is that you don't see that all that "abundance" of food was grown by people, transported by people, prepared by people, and served by people, and none of them are your slaves. If they had the chance to get their own free shit without having to do all that labour, they totally would. But then who would remain to do the work?
The all you can eat restaurant stays in business by charging enough for meals that they can be reasonably sure that you'll won't eat more than the food is worth. However, that doesn't reduce the value of the food to zero.
Let's try another thought experiment. In my experience, all you "shit should be free" types assume all value flows from the state. That's wrong; it flows from individuals that are taxed by the state. Why don't you, as an individual, open an all you can eat restaurant where people can eat for free? Why not be the change you want to see?
Your position is only tenable if you are part of an upper class that has others in a lower class working for them, and involuntarily donating the fruits of their labor. In another word, you wish to reintroduce slavery.
Your problem is that you presume food is abundant because it just is. Reality is that food is being produced, by people who want to be paid for it. Take away that payment, and they will stop producing.
Food is abundant because of the Haber process [1] and other industrial-era improvements to food production. Only about 2% of our total labor output is required in order to produce all of our food [2]. The government subsidizes 10% of all food production and purchases [3][4]. If we already can afford to pay 2% of our population to make all of the food, and we already give away 10% of it for free, then it seems like we could reasonably discuss giving away more food for free without disenfranchising farmers.
Edit: I just realized that you might be clueless about this entire corner of sociology, so I should tell you about government cheese [5]. WP says, "Government cheese was created to maintain the price of dairy when dairy industry subsidies artificially increased the supply of milk and created a surplus of milk that was then converted into cheese, butter, or powdered milk." In other words, the government put too much money into making food, and gave away the surplus, and this has been happening continuously for decades.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
[2] https://csanr.wsu.edu/we-are-the-98-percent/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_St...
[4] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...
Your link specifically says that 2% of the labor force are farmers. It does NOT say that all people involved in the entire chain of activities that ends with food sitting on your plate represent just 2% of the labor force. Other people involved are the people who make the fertilizer, the people who package the food (for example, by canning it), the people who put it on store shelves, and the people who transport it all at each stage. Your fourth link has a helpful chart: actual farming represents a mere 7.6% of the cost of the food.
Your links do not establish that 10% of the food production was subsidized. Even if they did, a subsidy is not free money; it is paid from taxes that everybody pays. Thus, assuming the 10% number holds up, the only conclusion that you can draw is that 10% of the cost of food production is socialized.
It does not logically follow that if we pay a certain percentage of the labor force for food production, we can therefore afford to give the food away for free. That assumes there is undue profit in the chain that could be removed. Such profit might exist, but you have done nothing to establish that as a fact.
Sociology is not the science of government cheese. Even so, the overproduction only represents yet another failure of central planning; the free market would not have made such a mistake. It is public money, taken from tax payers, and spent on producing unwanted goods. Nothing about it is free.
However, that 'sociology' does explain a lot about why you are so horribly misinformed about how the world works.
Would be a good start.