this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
2360 points (97.4% liked)

Work Reform

9664 readers
406 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 93 points 11 months ago (5 children)

I vote for wrecking the rich's yachts. There's even a great capitalist reason to do it: the companies that build them might make new sales! Win-win!

[–] [email protected] 45 points 11 months ago (37 children)

When you think about it, at that point at least the rich are spending their money again in order to buy another yacht, actually putting money into the economy.

It's like trickle down economics, but we gotta shoot some holes in the water tower to make it trickle down.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Building a super yacht means that dozens or hundreds of people work for the benefit of one person. As craftsmen, they could have improved the lives of tens of thousands in their community instead. As engineers, they could have built products serving millions.

Not to mention the natural resources used for one person's benefit.

There's nothing positive about super yachts (and mansions, private jets,...) being built. Don't let the flow of money confuse you.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago

the problem is actually how the rich keep buying the houses and making the prices increase for inorganic reason making people who really needs house cant afford it while at the same time the rich keep the house they bought empty

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

To be clear my comment was intended purely as satire. I definitely don't view the construction of yachts as positive in any way.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] eestileib 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is actually an example in The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith considers whether a hooligan smashing a window is a benefit to society because it creates work for the glazier.

Smith concluded that no, it isn't a net benefit because the glazier could have made a new window instead.

However, given that megayachts are net negative to society, I'm not sure how he'd view this case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The argument is sloppy.

The working class makes gains when our work helps us as a class, not when we are forced to serve.

If the wealthy are able to support the creation of wasteful luxuries for their own vanity, then they must be able to support activities that help the working class.

The difference is that the latter may require some encouragement.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My comment was satire. Stop arguing with the wind.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Many comments being posted are intended as satirical, but the actual apologia resembles satire so much that I think the intentional satire is rather creating confusion above all else.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

I said "shooting holes in a water tower to make trickle-down economics work" as a reply to someone making an obvious quip. IDK if you've just never been around leftist discussions, but joking about how fucked trickle-down economics is isn't an endorsement of building megayachts that wreck the environment and provide no good to society.

Stop being intentionally obtuse, or just don't blame others for your inability to read between the lines.

EDIT to add: I also explicitly stated it was satire in response to the only other comment that replied to mine taking it seriously. But even their comment just seemed more like a clarification for anyone else reading, not someone actually taking my comment seriously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Creating confusion for you maybe. Nobody else took my comment that seriously.

The general view is one I have reached after reading hundreds of threads or more.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So then why reply to my comment with a hostile argument when there was already a thread in reply to mine which cleared up any possible confusion?

You can't read satire, got confused and replied without spending the time to even read the other reply saying the same shit you said.

And you wanna blame satire for creating confusion.

If u smell shit everywhere you go, check ur own shoe bud.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

You are applying overly broad extrapolations, distorting the sense of my comments, and also imposing an inaccurate view that I expressed hostility.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Better yet, train orcas to attack yachts!

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Buddy, youre not gonna believe this...

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago

Gibraltar Orcas: "Way ahead of you there buddy"

[–] Piemanding 9 points 11 months ago

Do a new Boston Tea Party except this time we launch barrels of tea at yachts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I need a couple of their yachts to drag over some sturdy icebergs. Re-enact a much more expensive Titanic.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thanks to them you'll be hard pressed to find any sturdy icebergs anymore.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Protecting their yachts was their plan all along!