Capitalism Stockholm Syndrome
Fried_out_Kombi @ Fried_out_Kombi @lemmy.world Posts 13Comments 217Joined 2 yr. ago
Fried_out_Kombi @ Fried_out_Kombi @lemmy.world
Posts
13
Comments
217
Joined
2 yr. ago
The professional class already can negotiate for pay and working conditions because they're hard to replace. For example, I negotiated my salary up by 5k at the start and receive good annual raises because my skillset/expertise is hard to replace.
We also saw during the great resignation how employers were forced to pay better because they were having trouble finding people.
If employers have a credible threat of not being able to find people, they will have no choice but to offer better pay and better working conditions. As for how we achieve that, I'm personally in favor of a few policies:
- YIMBYism and land value taxes to solve the housing crisis, so that average folks aren't so squeezed on cost of housing
- Universal basic income to decouple paying rent and putting food on that table from jobs
- Public works/employment programs for activities that produce positive externalities, e.g., subsidies for FOSS software, more public research grants, subsidies for rewilding efforts, etc.
The general idea being that if you don't desperately need your employer to maintain a basic level of existence, they will have much less leverage over you. If you can credibly threaten to leave and go plant trees or write FOSS software or pursue higher education, your boss will need to offer you more.
Bonus point as, once housing is cheaper and once jobs pay better, people can have more in their savings accounts. This alone makes them less dependent as well, because they can survive longer and more comfortably without a job. For instance, if my boss mistreated me today, I could quit and coast on savings for a while until I found a new job. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck are living in a constant state of exploitation that is extremely ripe for exploitation. Destroy the desperation and you destroy the exploitability.
Reminder that Kissinger is still alive at 100 years old now. Why is it the worst people absolutely refuse to die?
They show you ads based on your search terms, not based on trackers or digital profiles of you.
66 is recorded currently in my ecosia account, but I used to have well over a hundred on an old PC before I ever realized you could sign in to track across devices. I probably have a ton on my work PC that isn't tracked to my account either.
I use ecosia as my default search engine! It's pretty great, and it respects privacy. It even tells you roughly how many trees have been planted from your searches.
We tried that already. For decades. And all we got was a disastrous war on drugs, millions of lives needlessly ruined, and the largest prison population on the planet.
Me, who's not in web dev:
Remember that in social media (including Lemmy) there's always some sort of general audience, lurkers that are following the discussion but not interacting with it. What matters is less to convince the moron(s) and more to inform the general audience.
This 100%. The rule of thumb I've heard is that about 90% of people are lurkers, 9% are commenters, and 1% are posters. This might be skewed somewhat on lemmy, as the reddit migration resulted in a disproportionate amount of commenters and posters to move to lemmy, plus the general sense of "doing my part" to provide content for this platform.
Anyhoo, regardless of the actual numbers, the most important people to convince in an online discussion are the onlookers. Rarely will you convince the person you're debating, but if you come in calm and rational and bring good links and supporting evidence to your claims, most lurkers will recognize that in my experience. If you look deranged and/or ignorant, you're unlikely to sway many except those who already agree with you.
The reason this is important is because, unfortunately, misinformation can spread like wildfire on the internet if you let it, so convincing onlookers of the actual facts is important. Sure, it's not healthy to dedicate our lives to schooling ignoramuses on the internet, but it's always good to help in the ways you can in the fight against misinformation.
For science news/communication, Sabine Hossenfelder is really good. She's an actual physicist and does a great job at presenting science news in a no-bs way. Also a good sense of humor.
For climate-related stuff, Climate Town is very good. He has a master's degree in climate policy, and he cites a ton of sources. His videos have a lot of humor and sarcasm, but they're very strongly fact-based and in-depth. He's not strictly news, but he does more mini-documentaries of topical topics relating to climate science and especially climate policy.
For general journalism and analysis, The Atlantic and The Economist are very good in my experience. They're both subscription-based (which honestly might be why they're so good; they don't have to chase clicks for ad revenue), but you can just browse their website for articles, then copy-paste the article links into archive.is to bypass the paywall. Both have a lot of excellent explanatory journalism and analysis.
I also find public broadcasters produce a lot of good content, as they likewise don't have to chase clicks for ad dollars. PBS and NPR (American), CBC (Canadian), DW (German, but they have English-language documentaries on youtube here), and Al Jazeera (Qatari, just don't trust their reporting on Qatar; their English international journalism is highly reputable, though, and they produce good documentaries available on youtube here) are some examples. In general, I find the long-form content produced (i.e., longer videos and documentaries as well as long-form articles) by these outfits to be better for "getting informed" than their regular just-the-facts news.
Amongst the above public broadcasters, I especially recommend the DW documentaries. They're really prolific and produce a ton of high-quality documentaries, all available for free on youtube.
For geopolitics and the war in Ukraine, William Spaniel is the best I've found. He's a professor of political science, and his videos are in-depth and topical on the happenings of the war. He also gives great insight into political science and geopolitics as a whole. Also has a good sense of humor and engaging style. He's also very quick to upload an analysis whenever there's a major development in the war.
For general data-based analysis, Our World in Data is a really good website. All the data is open-access and open-source, and they have a treasure trove of good charts and accompanying analysis for exploring the world by data. You can filter by subject category as well.
The main issue I find with strict factual reporting like Reuters or the AP is that most of us simply don't understand the context on every single issue to think critically about every story we read. Like, I know I have certain topics I do know a lot about, but the world is just too complex for me to know a lot about every topic.
This is where good explanatory journalism can come in, like Vox does. If you can find a good explanatory journalism outlet that you can trust (for me Vox is one of them), it can do a lot for your understanding of the news. There are also solo journalists doing this, scientists doing science communication, and so forth. Explanations by experts are worth their weight in gold.
Honestly, the best way to get informed is outside of social media. What gets people talking isn't always what you should know, and what people talk about on social media isn't typically a very high level of discourse. Sure, you do find occasional people putting in high-effort, informed comments, but it's hard to separate those from all the noise.
Probably my top recommendation is to find a non-fiction book (or several!) with good reviews and written by an expert on a topic that interests you and read it. As an example, I'm really interested in sustainable agriculture and gardening, so I got a few books on the topic, Farming the Woods and Silvopasture, and I read them. The nice thing about entire books written by experts is they'll include a lot of details and specifics that you simply wouldn't know that you don't know. And because it's a book, not some short video that has to appease an algorithm, they can take the time to guide you through all the depth you would miss from more superficial material.
Be wary to find legit books by legit experts, as there's unfortunately nothing stopping charlatans from pretending to be experts to sell you stuff or peddle a weirdo ideology.
Again, it's already working in Minneapolis and several other cities. I'll even post the table again for your convenience.
Hmmm, market rate is determined by price fixing so the people living there have to make more so they can live there and then the rent is price fixed up, and so on, and so on, and so on…
Look at the chart I showed in my last comment again. Clearly landlords in Minneapolis aren't raising rents in perpetuity. Gee, could that be because they abolished single-family zoning in 2018, and they're already seeing a stabilized rental market despite being a large, desirable, high-QoL city? So much for your assertion that it "takes 30 years to see results".
Raising taxes
My goal isn't raising taxes. My goal is to replace bad taxes like sales, income, and property taxes with good taxes like land value taxes, carbon taxes (and other taxes on negative externalities), and severance taxes.
all of your points are meaningless to me because you’re not operating in good faith.
My guy, who do you think I am? Do you think all YIMBYs are actually just a secret cabal of developers rubbing our greedy little YIMBY hands together to demolish your historic gas stations and parking lots?
I'm a fresh-out-of-grad-school engineer who rents an apartment in a major city. I've seen the power of YIMBYism first hand, as I was able to negotiate down the landlord on rent before signing the lease, because there was a credible threat of me leaving and finding somewhere else cheaper. The reason why? My city, Montreal, is the most affordable major city in North America, with some of the lowest barriers to density, and extensive neighborhoods of "missing middle" housing (e.g., townhouses, plexes, low- and mid-rise apartments). All despite being a very desirable, very high-QoL city. Turns out having options gives you actual negotiating power against your landlord.
If you have all the fear of homelessness and your landlord has no fear of vacancy, then your landlord has all the power over you. If you have plenty of options, and your landlord has a credible fear of vacancy, you will have actual negotiating power. NIMBY policies only serve to empower landlords and weaken tenants.
Unlike you, I want to actually grant tenants (myself included) more negotiating power against their landlords by granting them more choices in housing.
Further, do you legitimately believe the current crony capitalist system has produced enough housing in America and Canada? Or is it possible vested interests have captured local governments to artificially limit supply and thus limit competition, and that NIMBYs like you are the pawns to protect their speculative investments?
Yes, there is price fixing. You know how that works? By artificially restricting competition through regulatory capture, aka restrictive zoning.
All the evidence point to zoning reform and actually legally allowing things like missing middle housing to be effective ways to control rising rents. If you clicked on one of the above links, you'd see this table:
Also recall from the same report:
In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
I have found that the people calling for just changing the zoning laws usually have a bulldozer right behind their shoulder waiting to be sent.
Well you didn't even read the second half of my comment where I also called for taxing land.
PS Trickle down housing doesn’t work. The end.
Ah, yes, the old trick of calling everything you don't like "trickle down". Should the solution to the toilet paper shortages of 2020 have been to lock down new supply and wage a moral crusade against toilet paper scalpers? Or just actually get supply back to normal to avoid the whole situation in the first place?
What's ruining the real estate market is the fact it's literally illegal to build enough housing on the vast majority of urban land (same situation in Canada, too). Add in insane parking minimum laws, setback requirements, lot size minimums, etc., and what you get is artificial government-mandated ultra low-density sprawl.
It's the ultimate form of regulatory capture to protect the "investments" of speculators and homeowners. Typically under the guise of "protecting property values" or "protecting neighborhood character". Just consider: who benefits most from artificially restricting new competition than the owners of existing housing? Restrict new supply so that you can see the value of what you already possess go to the moon... all at the expense of the rest of society, of course.
If you have 9 homes for every 10 households, price will go up until one of those households is priced out of the market. If we built more and made there be 10 homes for every 9 households, landlords -- corporate or not -- would be stripped of their market power to raise rent.
The evidence backs this up. Any new housing, even "luxury" or market-rate, improves affordability:
New buildings decrease rents in nearby units by about 6% relative to units slightly farther away or near sites developed later, and they increase in-migration from low-income areas. We show that new buildings absorb many high-income households and increase the local housing stock substantially.
And more flexible zoning helps contain rising rents:
But what happens to rents after new homes are built? Studies show that adding new housing supply slows rent growth—both nearby and regionally—by reducing competition among tenants for each available home and thereby lowering displacement pressures. This finding from the four jurisdictions examined supports the argument that updating zoning to allow more housing can improve affordability.
In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs. Most rental homes do not receive government subsidies, though when available, subsidies allow rents to be set lower for households that earn only a certain portion of the area median income. Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. And the Pew analysis of these four places is consistent with that finding. (See Table 1.)
In addition, we can tax land:
Land value taxes are generally favored by economists as they do not cause economic inefficiency, and reduce inequality.[2] A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income.[3][4] The land value tax has been referred to as "the perfect tax" and the economic efficiency of a land value tax has been accepted since the eighteenth century.[1][5][6]
It's a progressive, essentially impossible to evade tax that incentivizes densification and development while disincentivizing real estate speculation. Oh, and it can't be passed on tenants, both in theory and in practice.
And even a milquetoast LVT -- such as in the Australian Capital Territory -- can have positive impacts:
It reveals that much of the anticipated future tax obligations appear to have been already capitalised into lower land prices. Additionally, the tax transition may have also deterred speculative buyers from the housing market, adding even further to the recent pattern of low and stable property prices in the Territory. Because of the price effect of the land tax, a typical new home buyer in the Territory will save between $1,000 and $2,200 per year on mortgage repayments.
One of my roommates in undergrad was from China, and whenever he went back to China to visit his family, we literally couldn't contact him because all the messaging apps/services we use are blocked in China.
Another family friend of mine lived and taught in Macau as a professor for a while, and he explained how he had to get a VPN just to access the regular internet.
Any government that locks down access like that is not one worthy of admiration. It's insane that people defend the CCP.
But just because they fought a great evil, doesnt mean they were " the good guys". It just means they fought a great evil.
Exactly! You can't just divide the world into "fought against the Nazis" and "didn't fight against the Nazis" and use that as your entire basis of morality. By that same logic, America is the Good Guys™ and has absolutely zero neo-Nazi problems because they destroyed Imperial Japan and fought against the Nazis, right?
It's completely possible to fight against the Nazis and still be evil yourself (cough cough Stalin), or the reverse where the Finns technically cooperated with the Nazis, but only because the USSR was literally doing a colonialism against Finland and the Nazis happened to be the only ones fighting the USSR at the time.
Morality and history are not black and white, despite these lemmygrad users' naked attempts to coerce them into being such.
Tankies != communists
Tankies are the insufferable fascists who take on a red aesthetic. There are plenty of great leftists, commies, and progressives who don't deny the Uyghur genocide or Holodomor or simp for Russia and the CCP. I'm not a communist myself (nor am I a capitalist for that matter), but I've got nothing against non-tankie communists aside from economic disagreements. Tankies I do have issue with, as should anyone who gives a rat's ass about the working class and basic human rights.
Also, lol at that Stalin profile pic. Literally fetishizing a genocidal dictator who betrayed the working class and murdered millions of innocents.
Yeah, and the admins of lemmy.ml are straight up tankies
Exactly. In the context of a small tribe, a family structure, a friend group, or a small commune, communism works. Why? Because there are social methods of enforcement. That is, if you're a greedy dick, everyone else will know and ostracize you for it. Thus, you have an incentive to play along fairly.
But once you get to a larger society — past Dunbar's number — you can no longer keep track of everyone and whether they're trustworthy or not. This allows bad actors to not play fairly with minimal consequence, breaking the system of relationships and trust that had allowed the system to work in the first place.