this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
1191 points (98.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

6023 readers
2179 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a pretty good idea. I just dislike the concept of money being a resource. I would like to convey that money is just a bunch of IOY (I owe You) society prints to be exchanged for goods and services. Billionaires are receiving a lot of IOYs, but can we really say they're "earning" them?

That's why I'm comparing their "earnings" with our top of the top of the top, the people that work the hardest, know the most and provide a crucial service to society. (There are more, but their salaries are hilariously unfair, also known as teachers).

Sorry about the rant. :-/

[โ€“] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 5 points 3 weeks ago

No one earns more than their labour could possibly produce. That labour however does have greater or lesser value to society, hence different pay rates.

My example above show that it's impossible for any one human to earn that much even if they were immortal and had lived since Homo Sapien migrated out of Africa.

That we have billionaires shows that a very large amount of people have been paid far far less than their labour was worth.

That value extraction goes away when ~~labour owns the means of production~~ the employees own the company (i.e. employees are the shareholders and reap the dividends).