whitemary

According to the shared documents, they will. They just need to file a claim first.

> For your housing example, we just need to produce more housing

Existing property capital owners have a vested interest in not building more housing. Building more housing will negatively impact their profits. Existing property capital owners also have far more power than the petty bourgeoise investors seeking to "build more." This conflict of "NIMBYs vs YIMBYs" exemplifies a core contradiction of capitalism that Karl Marx articulated 150 years ago, except "NIMBYs" are not individual homeowners; they are rather the idols of the petty bourgeoise "YIMBYs." See: contradiction.

Objectively, the working class has no place in this conflict and will not profit from building more housing. Of course we should build more and better housing for working people, but that is not what the petty bourgeoise investors actually want; they want to build more housing for profit. Big difference.

Your narration is so nonsensical and unserious that even the link you yourself shared undermines it, and of course it does. Wikipedia is a well-known liberal anti-communist institution, but at least they do some diligence.

It’s the aggregate of culture(s) in Europe. Delineate them as you wish, or not. It’s irrelevant to their point.

I sympathize with concerns of mythologizing culture into existence, as is usually done in the process of nation state formation, but that only succeeds because culture is such a crucial component of human life. This sort of pedantry can get in the way of engaging with its importance.

Like I said, this is only the most straightforward problem with UBI. The most damning problem with UBI is that it's still capitalism, i.e. the capitalists will remain in control. As a result, UBI recipients, like the poor in developed countries today, will remain what Karl Marx called a "reserve army of labor." The UBI will always fall short of what is necessary for a healthy or dignified existence. This instrumentalized suffering, just like the permanent unemployed class in the US today, is a crucial component of industrial capitalism. Effectively, under UBI, nothing will fundamentally change.

I do support UBI because it will probably prevent some number of deaths of despair, but capitalists will never let UBI happen for this reason. The reserve army of labor must be trimmed and maintained to prevent a worker uprising, which is the primary function of the opioid crisis.

Close, but the most efficient way to help people is to provide the services they need without depending on the private sector to deliver them. For example, if cash benefits are universally increased by $500, low-end rents will also increase by approximately that same amount, like clock work. UBI would be a catastrophe for many reasons, but this is the most straightforward of them.

Facts?

People need jobs. Most people realize that. How old are you?

Karl Marx is not only the most influential economist of all time; he is many orders of magnitude more influential than Keynes. Only an American could be clueless enough to think this is up for discussion.

I started my first corporate dev job about 8 months ago and the most effective thing for me has been asking nonstop questions. I can't say with certainty that nobody has been annoyed, but nobody has said so yet. In fact, my manager has praised my question-asking habits and I've gotten good reviews so far.

In order to avoid being annoying, these days I write out my questions in long-form with context, steps taken, etc. which may or may not be worthwhile but it makes me feel better about it. Sometimes, however, I will post this super long question in our Slack channel and the whole problem was a tiny little thing I forgot to do. Asking questions is just awkward, so I put extra effort into embracing that. Hopefully it doesn't backfire. So far, so good.

Definitely do one-on-ones with all your teammates even if it seems pointless. Most of your interactions with them will not be noteworthy, but it's all about the few exchanges that are.

Capital accumulation is necessary because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. In other words, you can't merely "create value" as a capitalist. Capitalists must accumulate capital merely to avoid losing everything. Capital accumulation is protected because capitalists literally created a government for that express purpose.

> When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir? - John Maynard Keynes

I sure would love to hear Mr. Keynes acknowledge defeat. If he were alive today, I seriously doubt we (Marxists like myself) would have the pleasure.

Capital accumulation and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall are the objective fundamental causes of inequality in every capitalist society, which is why every capitalist society depends on a plethora of ostensible efforts to counter these fundamental characteristics of capitalism.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to...

It's working great so far for the neoliberal ruling class. (See: Deaths of despair)

> They keep just missing the demographic of the lucrative rich middle aged adult looking for escape.

I'm curious. What is this group more interested in? Exotic vacations?

With all due respect, you failed at making that point, but now at least your intentions are understood.

>Your tiny house costs £1 million and we want to pay you £50k.

This is no coincidence. The entire point is to increase the wealth of the wealthiest fraction of a percent without disincentivizing the working class to keep showing up to work every day. Also note this is not a conspiracy but a structural tendency.

Spicily? What is that supposed to mean in this context?

That's why college should be free for everyone.

Sounds great. FYI The site does not work well on Firefox iOS.

The United States had legal chattel slavery for the first century of its existence, so that point is moot.

Of course your overall point is correct.

> This sounds like an incredibly obvious observation?

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the US who think American liberal ideals are, in some more-or-less abstract manner, descended from ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Maybe it's our neoclassical state buildings. I'm not sure.

It won't upend the VFX industry.

If a workflow cannot support iterating on every detail in isolation with psychotic levels of control, it won't even be adopted by the VFX industry.

God bless these saviors for prioritizing our "safety!"

The ruling class. In the contemporary US, this constitutes the owners of capital; not as a whole but as an aggregate of their competitive behavior.

...and the NLRB ensures that the violence continues only in one direction; from the ruling class against the working class.

To put my cards on the table, I am a Marxist. I also agree with every part of your comment. This is why (disciplined) Marxists oppose the NLRB and other aspects of Americanized union arrangements, and it's why we support right-to-work. The NLRB and the slew of anti-labor laws enacted in the US in the late forties have effectively weakened unions to the point that they cannot fight for anything without navigating the NLRB's bureaucratic maze of anti-labor regulations. Realize these laws were enacted in direct response to soldiers returning from WW2 and not taking shit from anybody. They made demands, fought for them, and won, and capital passed these laws in response.

So...the question now becomes: How do you feel about illegal wildcat strikes? Would you support abolishment of the NLRB? Would you support reversal of the Taft Hartley act? Which side are you actually on?

Against the cost of living in the US, workers in the US are about as cheap as they come, second to maybe sweatshop workers in free trade zones or slaves in Dubai.

Even if they do today, they could change their mind tomorrow, or even tonight.

> Don't you have exactly what you have today where everyone presses 0?

...and repeat until they get a human capable of actually helping them