this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1003 points (94.3% liked)
Greentext
4502 readers
1232 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A perfect solution does not exist. I don't see anything too controversial about this unless you're implying that unions are somehow the problem. I would agree that trade unions would be better. But more ideally workers owning the means of production would be best. Though possibly still not perfect.
Good landlords exist. That however does not mean that landlords are generally good. Or that the sentiment against them is undeserved. Or that we should have landlords in the first place. Far too many sit back and cash in, as you put it.
There is no such thing as unbridled capitalism. Capitalism is always serving someone. But it's never the laborers or workers. Also Leninism != communism. (Yes they like to call themselves that and democratic. But that's never made it true.) And no, capitalism hasn't been much more beneficial in practice than leninism. This is not a defense of leninists. Far from. Just pointing out the pot calling the kettle black. Realistically there's little to point to capitalism being any better than mercantilism that came before.
Sometimes views can be unpopular because they're uninformed. Which, not wanting to debate this sort of thing definitely points to. That said, I have a bigger issue with not being able to debate/defend my views, than how popular they are with group X.
Not debating is mostly about what is beneficial for me. Interpret it as you will, I'm a happier person not trying to convince Internet strangers that they haven't theorically solved the puzzle of how to organize society.
There's not much interpretation to be had. Though, thanks for permission I guess?
The problem with the first two things is the message seems to be that all bosses are bad and all landlords are bad and you should hate them all.
The owner of my company pays more than I've ever made in my life (like double), gives us a ton of freedom, has stated that if things are slow he's fine with people chilling. Half of the time I walk into the warehouse, everyone is playing on their phones. We've also got a pickleball court. He pays for 75% of health insurance and buys everyone lunch once a month. I also know that he payed for a coworker's legal fees when they were trying to get their kids back from their drug addicted mother.
All that, and a few weeks back some guy was trying to get people to unionize because he read something on the internet.
The problem with that entire message. Is that you're misrepresenting what was said, to the point of making a strawman. And then misrepresenting an anecdote as evidence to prove a trend far far larger than it. One that all actual evidence paints a completely opposite picture.
I literally said good landlords can and do exist. Similarly isolated good bosses and CEOs can exist. But they are very isolated. To the point that they're not representative. Where I work, my direct boss happens to be generally great. It goes heavily downhill the further up you go. Our CEO is feckless. 3rd generation. More interested in investing and financing with the money his inheritance provided him than running the business his family built. Which is much more the norm.
If your companies owner is really that great, you should stop taking them for granted. They aren't representative in any way. Definitely not of any larger companies. I'm guessing yours is positively tiny. That tends to be where the better ones are. Because power corrupts.
When I said the problem with the first two things, I was referring to the concepts laid out by the person you replied to. I wasn't saying the problem with the first two things you said.
Our revenues are about $20m/mo, we're not massive but not tiny. I don't take anyone for granted, not sure where you got that notion.
My point is that while there is a clear problem with both, it doesn't represent everything. Social media tends to boil things down to oversimplifications and people will charge forward without thinking critically.