http://www.machall.com/comics/20030708.jpg
obviously poll isn't meant to be a super accurate representation of diversity, it's a broad strokes type thing.
Printable View
http://www.machall.com/comics/20030708.jpg
obviously poll isn't meant to be a super accurate representation of diversity, it's a broad strokes type thing.
You seem familiar OP.
*beardstroke*
you have a beard now?
You're not new to these parts, stranger...Quote:
Originally Posted by postrook
*beardstroke*
Chose working class since I guess that's the new politically correct term for "poor" ?
A bit of a neckbeard haha, but no, it was more of an expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by postrook
pretty sure the term was coined by Karl Marx? so, it's kind of not actually new at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acreon
Nothing like living paycheck to paycheck.
Ah, well either way I haven't heard it before and it just sounds like a sugared up way to say poor as **** lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by postrook
The origin of that wording goes back to Roman times.Quote:
Originally Posted by postrook
So much for "political correctness".
Also, saying that the working class is synonymous with "poor people" is completely invalid.
A society in which the working people are unable to sustain themselves is a society where the ways of production waste more resources than they create. Such a society can't exist.
No, it's more like: what they produce doesn't end up in their hands.Quote:
A society in which the working people are unable to sustain themselves is a society where the ways of production waste more resources than they create. Such a society can't exist.
Doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenonight2
If they can's sustain themselves, they perish as a part of society.
A society without people who work does not work. (funny how that sentence turned out.)
I am talking general terms here, as in "in general it applies that working class means being poor". That means that this society is directly under the threat of imminent demise.
Economists know this. Ofc, what they produce doesn't end up in the workers own hands, that's the point of division of labour.
However, factory owners in general terms can not base their business models on offering compensation for the work done in it, that can's sustain the workers.
Imagine that happens;
While a product is made, the factory worker earns less than he needs to life. In this sense, he will have to stop working very soon. His time no matter if he still works or if he has already stopped goes to waste, because as a consequence he cant progress towards the fulfilling of his needs.
That means that the worker is loosing resources all the time. If you assume that the factory owner does still try to gather a profit; That will not come from a value creation taking place, since more value is diminished in this process then created, but it just adds to the resources subtracted from the workers means, even speeding up the process of value decay.
If the immaterial non monetary cost of a product is higher than the price the product can fetch, there is no talking about who gets what. The process is broken and fails; The longer it runs that way the worse, by means of an exponential decay and thus it will fail very very quickly and completely.
If a society comes to the point where in general people are actually really called "poor" whilst still working, the majority of employees, not some 10%, will stop to work, because there is no valid reason to.
Consequentially the society will collapse.
(One can say as the substance for a societies workings (lol that word again) are lacking it has already ceased existance.)
That is why "working class" and "poor" are exclusive in a general sense.