If you’re so concerned about the economy why don’t you focus on the Lords and dictators sucking the wealth out of you and your fellow man rather than picking a fight with people trying to make a better life for themselves.

You’re such a little brainwashed peasant that you’re turning your anger towards those that have less rather than focusing on those robbing you blind.

You’re wrong in assuming i’m not fighting against the rich. I am a vocal proponent of wealth tax, and dedicate a lot of effort towards that goal.

I assume you should have taken the time to learn one thing about me or two before forming an assessment about my character.

My stance is: when arguing on lemmy, you’re not only trying to convince the other one. You’re also trying to convince future readers. Even if the other one is an asshole, people see that and that has an effect.

Look, i’m allowed to have an opinion, and what i said did not break any laws or directly attack any individual or group of people.

You, on the other hand, are being emotional, and on top of that, rude. I don’t accept that. If you have something to say, you have to learn to say it properly. Calling others “not worth the air they breathe” is a serious insult and you should reconsider the way you argue with people.

Apart from that, i think we need to take a stance where we’re actually discussing points, including their effects and consequences, instead of falling back to a mud-throwing insult-battle. I’m trying to bring up fair and valid points, you’re insulting. I think i should be taking a stance here.

Genies appear when you “rub the lamp”.

“Rubbing the lamp” is possibly a symbolism for sexual intercourse. It describes the exchange of sexual services against “favors”, i.e. wishes.

As such, it coded a possible course of action of young, powerless people in need to receive a wish.

how about you fucking learn to read my point? I was explaining it two minutes ago.

Now, you’re being emotional, and i respect your stance, but “fuck off” is not a great argument.

It’s mostly racism in the case of the US.

The US wants to preserve its exceptionalism, and thus doesn’t want to get “flooded with a wave of normal people from other countries”.

They worry it would dilute their exceptionalism.

Apart from that, other countries can have other reasons to be against immigration. I live in Europe, and for me it’s mostly economic concerns: I’m thinking that immigrants make the economic situation of the people living in this country worse, because they take jobs and occupy resources such as housing. It’s not racism, just economic concern.

It doesn’t affect me, but it’s not illegal to have good points and valid criticism about other country’s internal politics. As long as they are reasonable and respect the different circumstances of that other country.

It did have a reason historically to exist.

America is a pretty young country. Lots of people moved there from Europe in the last 200 years. Birthright citizenship existed sothat people would move to America, to increase its population numbers.

Now that America’s population numbers are hitting a maximum, immigration doesn’t make sense anymore, and neither does birthright citizenship.

It is dependent on the developmental stage of the country and its population numbers IMO.

No they meant brake. Like, the urinal’s smooth and continued function brakes. Comes to a halt.

but there is no real monetary incentive right now.

dude, solar energy is literally the cheapest form of energy right now. there is a real monetary incentive.

i’d like to be a labor leader, but i’m not (yet). Yet here’s my opinion:

Knowledge was meant to be free since the beginning. I look at ideas as human-cultivated, carefully cultured viruses. They’re packages of information that live within a host.

They’re a lot less aggressive than their feral counterparts, but they’re still individual beings who want to spread. Holding back knowledge is unnatural, and the internet should be free.

Water dissociates in the presence of electrical voltage into hydrogen and oxygen, and that makes it somewhat conductive (due to ionisation).

The bigger problem however is corrosion. Said oxygen causes corrosion.

the onion can not keep up with this, because fiction has to be believable, unlike reality ;-)

No shit sherlock.

But the decline in real (inflation-adjusted) wages is a broader phenomenon and not constrained to gig-works, and that’s what deserves attention.

Background:

For years, inflation has been under-reported. Inflation should be measured mostly based on food-items, as the production methods don’t change over time in these areas, so prices there (inflation-adjusted) should stay constant. But if you look at official inflation rates, they are much lower (approx. 1% annually). Since wages barely keep up with official inflation, they fall behind on “food”-inflation. And that principle is basically at the core of the current “cost-of-living”-crisis.

The basic issue is that wages are dropping because progress is ending. Progress creates demand for human labor, and that keeps wages up. Since progress worldwide is slowing down, that depresses wages. That’s why we need fundamental reform, or revolution.

Or we need to find new progress. I’m all for mars settlement btw, just that many people here can’t imagine it happening (yet). But we’ll see.

to not have to balance priorities between getting a good tip and following restaurant policies.

Can you explain more? Like, why is it an either-or-situation?

It’s all about how far you look into the future.

If you look into the future by 20 years, then yes, not tipping is the best way to improve the average wages of servers, and in fact the wages would probably rise to match exactly the loss in tippings.

But if you look at only the next 3 months, wages might not rise quickly enough to compensate the losses through tipping, and that puts servers in a (temporary) hardship.

So, it’s all about whether you’re far-sighted or short-sighted.

I understand your point, and i totally understand the hatred of capitalism, because it is a cruel system.

Just let me put things into context, though:

Capitalism isn’t the fundamental origin of the difficulties of our time. The difficulties have already existed earlier. There were the romans who waged war against basically the rest of the world, putting many people in hardship, and then there were the English in the 18th century who developed the modern version of capitalism.

In the roman system, it was all about power. You conquer some other country to get its resources, and you use these resources for personal gains. So it was direct personal greed.

The english refined the system in the way that they said, “alright, people are fundamentally greedy, but at least let’s try to put that to good use. let’s use the destructive power as positively as possible”. And then they went and designed a system where companies that are more fit to provide attractive products to others gain power; As such, greedy assholes have an incentive to provide something to others, even if it’s ultimately to their own gains.

I understand it’s a small positive in an overwhelming crushing wave of greed and sociopathy; i just wanted to explain the background of modern-day capitalism and the origin of “companies” the way we know them today.