Do you believe "I cannot come into work because I cannot afford gas" will be viable?

[Endus]

Nah. Not caring for part of humanity isn't misanthropy. Stop acting like there's something "wrong" with me because I don't care about absolutely every person ho walks this earth.

Literally the definition of misanthropy.

It's not normal, dude.

Just say you don't like people like me and get over it.

I don't accept the abusive and harmful ideology you're pushing, and that said ideology is rooted in suffering and ignorance.

This isn't personal. I don't know you. I can only characterize and criticise the arguments you put forward. "Liking" doesn't enter into the equation.

Tomayto/tomaato. I'm not nitpicking what humans do for bare minimum survival versus what they do to get higher up the food chain. Besides that, you're still not advocating for humans to have to do their "chores" either, and still get a free ride. because YOU think it's "easy enough" for strong people to just altruistically dedicate their strength. Nah. Pass.

It really isn't nitpicky. A hell of the lot of the labor people do is not considered "work", because we're not paid to do it. Cleaning your own house, maintaining your lawn, shopping for groceries and other supplies, commuting, rearing your children, and so on. It'd be "work" if you paid someone else to do it for you, but it isn't "work" if you're doing it for yourself. Not in sociological/economic terms. Which is what we're discussing, here.

And yes; I'm advocating for empathic support of those in need. And yes; it's dead fucking easy for a rich person to pay taxes to cover those needs. The easiest thing in the world. There's no need for them to do so altruistically, at all. That's why there's a tax system.

Biggest difference between me and those people is I won't hunt down people to exterminate them, nor propose doing such a thing.

You really need to look into events like the Holodomor. "Hunting down" is not a requirement for genocide; letting people die off is all it takes to qualify as a genocide.

You are literally and definitively advocating for genocide, as if it were "good". In much the same phrasing and rhetoric as the worst tyrants and human rights abusers of history.

If you think automation can provide everything all the current humans need to keep their current lifestyles or even just basic necessities without a single human having to do actual labor you're quite frankly stupid. We're nowhere near that yet.

Ask yourself this: if all humans stopped working *tomorrow* what would we be without? How much less stuff do you think would be available?

This is an intellectually bankrupt straw man.

No one is suggesting nobody would work. Plenty of people want to work. We're simply discussing an economy that doesn't abuse those who don't want to work, and is balanced to optimize things for the workers, rather than the fatcat owners at the top, who produce nothing and take everything.

[BeepBoo]

this just comes off as a Child's understanding of how human civilization works.

K.

And remind me, you want to live like primitive civs, right? Or do you recognize some short comings there. Personally, I want as much cool shit as possible to enjoy life with. I'm not a simple person who has simple pleasures. Once I'm exposed to something luxurious, I typically want it.

[Endus]

If someone lived in the woods on their own as the last person alive, would you say they're "forced" to do labor to not starve to death?
That's how this works.

If having to choose between "force people to work for their own survival" and "force people to work for others' survival" I know which one I'd rather have, because SOMEONE is going to have to do the work. Deal with your own circumstances and leave me the fuck out of that equation.

Here, you betray that you cannot conceive of anyone choosing to work, for personal reasons. That you don't understand concepts like;

Personal satisfaction.
Self-improvement.
Pride in one's work.
Desire to improve society.
Pursuit of luxury.
A need to feel useful.

People labor even without compensation, for the sake of the labor itself, all the time. Volunteerism wouldn't exist, if they didn't. They aren't doing that for survival, but for other, personal reasons. You can't even conceive of a world where maybe no one is "forced". Maybe those who want to work, work. Those who don't, don't, and don't suffer thereby. You're the one inserting "forced labor" in as some necessity, and it flatly isn't. That's your personal issues being projected.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. I'm exactly 0% authoritarian. On the contrary, I'm the antithesis of that. I don't want anyone to be able to forcefully tell anyone else what to do.

You're literally talking about forcing people to work, or letting them die.

Don't lie about your own position, dude.

[uuuhname]

And remind me, you want to live like primitive civs, right?

never said I did. so why are you putting words in my mouth?

could it be you can't actually address the argument that living in a society requires giving and taking in order for it to even function? and none of it requires treating humans like garbage? like we can still benefit from the fruits of modern society, it doesn't require human suffering despite you trying and failing to argue that it does.

[BeepBoo]

Literally the definition of misanthropy.

TIL being indifferent towards someone's continued life or death is disliking them. TIL that maybe not liking some humans = a dislike for HUMANKIND (as in the collective entirety of humanity).

It's not normal, dude.

Right. only normal enough that you think charity doesn't work because people still die

I don't accept

You don't need to. What you need to do is step off thinking you deserve to force me to abide YOUR ideologies.

"Hunting down" is not a requirement for genocide; letting people die off is all it takes to qualify as a genocide.

Not according to the definition of it. "Deliberate killing" is more than just refusing to help. Unless you want to say the entirety of NATO is engaging in genocide by not helping out ukraine. Bad hot take there.

You are literally and definitively advocating for genocide, as if it were "good". In much the same phrasing and rhetoric as the worst tyrants and human rights abusers of history.

Except I'm not. I'm arguing that giving people the freedom to choose their level of burden acceptance is good, even if that results in burdensome people dying.

This is an intellectually bankrupt straw man.

Read the poster I quoted. They were literally talking about automation handling 100% of work.

- - - Updated - - -

never said I did. so why are you putting words in my mouth?

Then what is the point of bringing up and romanticizing those civs? Nothing. They're irrelevant.

could it be you can't actually address the argument that living in a society requires giving and taking in order for it to even function?

Where did I say it doesn't? What we're arguing here is the line in the sand of how much "society" should be covering. You think of it as some big thing that needs to make a promise to absolutely everyone in it that they'll be cared for. I'm saying society and individuals should be free to navigate that one for themselves. People should be free to leave it if they want and find another and society should be free to decide it no longer wants one of its members.

like we can still benefit from the fruits of modern society, it doesn't require human suffering despite you trying and failing to argue that it does.

But I can benefit more if I don't have to be concerned with those burdens and I'd rather have that.

[Endus]

Not according to the definition of it. "Deliberate killing" is more than just refusing to help. Unless you want to say the entirety of NATO is engaging in genocide by not helping out ukraine. Bad hot take there.

The international definition of genocide;

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Emphasis added. That's what you're describing; conditions of life you want to see inflicted upon a group of people (a social class), with the goal of physically destroying some subset (part) of that group.

You might try and wiggle out because it's not a "national, ethnical, racial, or religious group", but "it's not genocide if they're dying because they're poor rather than because they're black or Jewish!" isn't the strong defense of your morality that you think.

[BeepBoo]

Emphasis added. That's what you're describing; conditions of life you want to see inflicted upon a group of people (a social class), with the goal of physically destroying some subset (part) of that group.

You're confusing WANTING to see with BEING OKAY SEEING. I don't pretend to know exactly how much suffering would occur if people were free to pick and choose how much they wanted to help or not help. I'm saying I'm okay with whatever that amount is. I'm not "deliberately inflicting" shit. Also, by that definition, you could interpret it to mean that, at any given turn of someone deciding to not help someone else, they're inflicting conditions that destroy a part of life. Nah. That's bullshit, but nice lawyer definition there. I'll stick to the webster one.

[uuuhname]

Nothing. They're irrelevant.

because you don't understand/care about human history and how that reflects on the modern world?

Where did I say it doesn't? What we're arguing here is the line in the sand of how much "society" should be covering. You think of it as some big thing that needs to make a promise to absolutely everyone in it that they'll be cared for. I'm saying society and individuals should be free to navigate that one for themselves. People should be free to leave it if they want and find another and society should be free to decide it no longer wants one of its members.

But I can benefit more if I don't have to be concerned with those burdens and I'd rather have that.

if society doesn't hold a promise to protect or provide for those living within it then what's the point of even having it? this is the argument AnCaps make for living in Mad Max. where everyone is out for themselves and everyone who isn't you or your own are as good as road kill. like that's not how a modern society works... you're the one arguing for primitivism here.

and of course that last line sums up your presence here perfectly: anything that doesn't directly and solely benefit me can be pitched into a fire, I am a totally not self absorbed narcissist.

[Veggie50]

Well in the netherlands it's custom that if a longer commute is part of getting to your office, the company compensates you for it.

However this seems like a mostly USA focussed thread. I say this, because the USA has an enormous dependency on motorised vehicles for everyday life. I saw a youtube video once of an American showing how hard it was to just walk 1km to the store (due to lack of infrastructure for non motorised traffic). In that scenario I can imagine people working at a walmart would NEED a car.

If we don't figure out affordable electric/hydrogen fuelled cars AND nuclear fusion within the next few years, expect society to change a lot.

- American urban planning will change a LOT (you are very much outliers)
- Brick and mortar stores will largely disappear

The question posed in the thread though; No, employers will not consider it a valid excuse. They will be forced to compensate it though, raising the cost of labour, making them less competitive against online ventures. And for the stuff that can't be done online, like barrista's? That cup of coffee is going to become even more expensive.

[BeepBoo]

if society doesn't hold a promise to protect or provide for those living within it then what's the point of even having it?

Society to me is simply a geographical proximity that allows for easier exchange of goods and services so people can at least attempt to improve their lives by engaging in said trade. It has nothing to do with offering promises, mutual agreements for all parties, etc.

and of course that last line sums up your presence here perfectly: anything that doesn't directly and solely benefit me can be pitched into a fire, I am a totally not self absorbed narcissist.

You act like I'm 100% against all philanthropy or that I don't have things I dedicate my time and efforts to that I do get enjoyment out of that also serve some other purpose for being useful to society. Just because they ALSO give me happiness doesn't mean they are suddenly valueless. I do plenty in life just because I want to give back to people who are also extending help to me. That whole give and take thing makes 100% perfect sense to me, which is why I don't want people to just be takers. Just because I'm not for providing an unlimited support net for a certain class of person doesn't mean I'm completely selfish in every circumstance. I'm just more selfish and real about it than you.

[uuuhname]

You act like I'm 100% against all philanthropy or that I don't have things I dedicate my time and efforts to that I do get enjoyment out of that also serve some other purpose for being useful to society. Just because they ALSO give me happiness doesn't mean they are suddenly valueless. Just because I'm not for providing an unlimited support net for a certain class of person doesn't mean I'm completely selfish in every circumstance. I'm just more selfish and real about it than you.

this might mean something if this post didn't exist.

I'll take pointless humans that can't find their own support networks (ie friends/family who are willing to shoulder their burden) disappearing.

wow, that's SOOOOOOOO charitable of you.

stop projecting your selfishness onto other people.

[BeepBoo]

wow, that's SOOOOOOOO charitably of you.

"if you're not willing to do as much charity as *I* think you should do, it's meaningless and I'll discount it!"
Precisely why I don't give a shit what other people think about how charitable I am and why I don't want ANY amount of forced charity existing in law. I'll choose for myself what is enough and what I'm happy with and I'll extend that courtesy to every other individual as well.

[MCMLXXXII]

Well in the netherlands it's custom that if a longer commute is part of getting to your office, the company compensates you for it.

However this seems like a mostly USA focussed thread. I say this, because the USA has an enormous dependency on motorised vehicles for everyday life. I saw a youtube video once of an American showing how hard it was to just walk 1km to the store (due to lack of infrastructure for non motorised traffic). In that scenario I can imagine people working at a walmart would NEED a car.

If we don't figure out affordable electric/hydrogen fuelled cars AND nuclear fusion within the next few years, expect society to change a lot.

- American urban planning will change a LOT (you are very much outliers)
- Brick and mortar stores will largely disappear

The question posed in the thread though; No, employers will not consider it a valid excuse. They will be forced to compensate it though, raising the cost of labour, making them less competitive against online ventures. And for the stuff that can't be done online, like barrista's? That cup of coffee is going to become even more expensive.

That is to a very limited amount of 19 cents per kilometer. With current gasoline prices equals to the fumes in your tank. You can get more but you and your employer will be heavily taxed. And it isn't mandatory by law. It's a "courtesy " which is used by employers to minimize profits.

[theostrichsays]

I'm a carpenter in a tourist town. Where I live the service industry will simply replace those who can't afford to come in with more Visa workers, whose transportation and lodging will be provided for by the business.

[PACOX]

Probably also thinks the baby formula shortage is also his fault.

The President does have a say but to say the President doesn't influence is to ignore how policy and politics influence either issue.

Crude oil prices are indeed tied to politics, especially international politics, which the US President and US in general hold a lot of clout.

The baby formula issue is a direct result of US policy that set up the single point of failure in our baby formula supply chain. Couldn't even import safer formula due to policy. The President doesn't control policy but does shape it more than a lot of people.

[Mayhem]

They are valued for the direct impact them stopping would have on society. For a vast majority of people who are in these labor categories, that number is near-nothing. They'd be replaced *that day* with someone else because they're essentially just meat-machines doing robotic labor. They're so easy to replace that they have next-to-no impact if they just up and quit, because someone else who is concerned with survival will just hop in and take their place. That's what happens when no one wants to support you or help you survive and you decide you'd rather eek out another day than bite the bullet, which is a very rational decision IMO.

Sure, nurses, teachers, healthcare workers, cooks, and food processing personnel are all instantly replaceable and valued according to their impact on society.

[BeepBoo]

Sure, nurses, teachers, healthcare workers, cooks, and food processing personnel are all instantly replaceable and valued according to their impact on society.

NPs make like 100k a year. Not exactly low wage people with no training. Teachers are easily replaceable. Anyone who knows the info can become good at teaching it. "Healthcare workers?" Which ones, exactly? Most of the lower rung ones take next to no time to learn their skills.

Cooks? Again, which cooks? Cooking is fucking easy. GOOD cooks (as in head chefs at nice restaurants) get paid well. Line cooks are a dime a dozen and easily learned positions.

Food processing people? Yeah. Any factory/line job is easy as shit, period.

[unfilteredJW]

NPs make like 100k a year. Not exactly low wage people with no training. Teachers are easily replaceable. Anyone who knows the info can become good at teaching it. "Healthcare workers?" Which ones, exactly? Most of the lower rung ones take next to no time to learn their skills.

Cooks? Again, which cooks? Cooking is fucking easy. GOOD cooks (as in head chefs at nice restaurants) get paid well. Line cooks are a dime a dozen and easily learned positions.

Food processing people? Yeah. Any factory/line job is easy as shit, period.

Jesus fucking wept.

[Kaleredar]

NPs make like 100k a year. Not exactly low wage people with no training. Teachers are easily replaceable. Anyone who knows the info can become good at teaching it. "Healthcare workers?" Which ones, exactly? Most of the lower rung ones take next to no time to learn their skills.

Cooks? Again, which cooks? Cooking is fucking easy. GOOD cooks (as in head chefs at nice restaurants) get paid well. Line cooks are a dime a dozen and easily learned positions.

Food processing people? Yeah. Any factory/line job is easy as shit, period.

This, children, is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Someone who knows very little, convinced that they know a lot, because their ignorance of the subject has convinced them that it's very easy.

First, in order to teach... any grade, you need a bachelor's degree. So that's four years of college education, potentially five, right there at least... and no, not taking underwater basket weaving for four years, taking actual, specific teaching courses. Plus the monetary requirements required to fund it. And some states require additional certifications for teaching on top of that. Then, you have to student teach for at least half a semester. Then... maybe you can get hired as a teacher, potentially at a school some distance from you, and not even necessarily the one you student-taught at.

You think you show up to the little red schoolhouse with a nice outfit on, tell them you can teach multiplication tables and they give you a classroom of 25 first graders right then and there? Lemme guess, kids these days just need to pound the pavement and stop buying ipods and avacado toast if they wanna afford a house, right? Just because you might have had a drunken lout they picked off the street that would oggle the junior girls as a woodshop teacher when you were in highschool doesn't mean that kind of thing flies anymore.

And whether you think people should be able to waltz on in to a school, demonstrate that they know a few basic facts, and then be made a teacher... well, doesn't make it so.

[BeepBoo]

This, children, is an example of the dunning-Krueger effect. Someone who knows very little, convinced that they know a lot, because their ignorance of the subject has convinced them that it's very easy.

No, I fucking teach actively. I know how easy it is to be an effective teacher. No, not a grade school, but I am a teacher.

First, in order to teach... any grade, you need a bachelor's degree. So that's four years of college education, potentially five, right there at least... and no, not taking underwater basket weaving for four years, taking actual, specific teaching courses.

Those courses are easy. Sorry.

Also, yes I'm talking about how easy it is to be a teacher, not how much time and effort it takes to get "certified" for teaching. If the supply of teachers was smaller and they weren't tripping head over heels to get jobs (the only reason this is even a thing is specifically because it's easy to do) then we probably wouldn't have such certifications.