Then EXPLAIN how I can LITERALLY not only support local economies but ALSO do a service to wildlife and ecosystems as a whole, all through a simple purchase while _also_ enjoying some tasty mushrooms. Seems the people against the whole "ethical consumption" thing forget that there are smaller, more ethical companies that people will ALWAYS flock to because they want a better product. A big porky company can cut corners all they want but some people, whose ranks continuously grow with increased environmental and product awareness, will buy products that are not only healthy but also ecologically sustainable.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitali-
Other urls found in this thread:
Mushrooms truly are mankind's forgotten fruit. They are a beautiful form of life.
Fuck the economy, you can find that stuff if you look in the woods. I eat stuff like dandelions, cattails and mushrooms raw all the time. Just don’t take them from populated areas because chemicals might be on them
Anyway, I've seen it, any the point is valid for Starbucks. Starbucks uses manipulative practices to get ahead and economically, that's alright for now (as they see it), though people are waking up and small companies are becoming in vogue, and rightfully so as ones like Starbucks are exposed. This doesn't mean we have to abolish capitalism though.
There's not a lot of edible ones in my locale; where these mushrooms were harvested is a couple thousand miles from where I live, and even then I'm not all too keen to spend several hours trying to hunt down new mushrooms. Even then, I wouldn't be supporting the efforts of an organized company to build sustainable food sources on top of supporting local economies (picking your own doesn't really do that).
The small "ecological" companies will inevitably become big companies in the future as their profits grow and will be forced to use Starbucks's manipulative practices if they want to stay in business. That's how capitalism works.
Marxists aren't marxists because of petty moralisms or how good the commodities in a system makes us feel
Did he seriously deserve a ban?
Where is the plastic from?
Their scale will increase but why will they all of a sudden need to start backtracking on the very thing that made them desirable to major alternatives? If they do do that then people will just switch to a more ecologically-sustainable alternative.
I and many other people feel that our products have to come from environmentally-sustainable sources to maintain a future food supply and the ecosystem. Nothing wrong with that.
Yes because in the free market people have a choice as to what they buy. Though these big corporations have accumulated a lot of power, later on in capitalism people will know better and never let this happen again by being environmentally-conscious consumers.
Under socialism you'd still be working for something in return, whether it's money or goods up front or whatever. Why would this be better than capitalism?
The recycling plant 👍
Who picked those mushrooms for you? A worker? Is he receiving the fair share from his labour? No, you're money is in the pockets of the CEO, who did nothing to give you floor fungus
That worker works a part of the day for their own wage and the other to maintain and develop the economy – the company can't fund more and better innovations if the workers don't work for it. The innovations the company makes benefit everyone, not just the company owners.
If by benefit everyone, you mean fire factory workers for automation, plastic wrapping the mushrooms in - what is most likely - single use plastic, stapling it to some cardboard and loading it into boxes, for then more unpaid labourers to load it into transport, for said transport to further pollute on top of the already over-polluted production process.
Many workers arent actually stimulating the economy, but either having to work multiple jobs, use government welfare, or crash out entirely. A majority of that wage is going to a landlord, a car company, (In america) a health insurance company, and then be taxed by a government who uses it to subsidise his boss to go innovate those nice "better innovations", which inevitably kick the labourer out his position anyway.
If you support leftist whitey faggotry, I will find you and murder you fellow ANPRIM. I want to make you fertilizer for my Forest Garden if you're a leftist piece of faggot fucking goddamn shit I'll stab you to death animal. Die scum.
You have no fucking idea what I meant by "instabilities and antagonisms", do you?
Because compensation would reflect the labour done better and the method of compensation and distribution would both be more efficient and not subject to drastic destabilizing fluctuations
Unironically kys liberal
you know, unlike people who can't afford that better product, which is usually a much larger portion of the population than the people who can
Why would they labor then lmao
Even then the rest of that stuff is eventually going to lead to post-scarcity. When nobody has a job and everything is automated it just means that social welfare is going to increase again and again as machines get more efficient.
Then why do they get employed?
Yea, that's a budget. Once you get the necessities paid for you have a surplus to use for fun things.
If you don't like what I said then explain why I'm wrong instead of tossing around big broad words.
How? Are you saying that if people got more wages things would be better? In that case the infrastructure would crumble and growth would stagnate because the money that was supposed to go for those things went to people instead.
Usually yeah. If a simple worker had all the ideas and plans then they would be the one in charge.
Cost of what? Why aren't the left and right axes labelled?
How is productivity 72.2% despite being at an all-time high? And how come hourly compensation is 9.2% despite 109% being 45.6% of 238.7%? Either way, the quality of life now is better worldwide and in developed countries than it was ten years ago, and from the ten years before that. Where's the problem?
Food isn't expensive unless you're buying gourmet cheese and wine every day. Find the right food and you're good.
Oh god you're stupid.
h o m e l e s s n e s s
they are unpaid because they dont have ANY surplus income, fool. Household debt is at record levels. I'll admit the original shouldve said "underpaid" but the point still stands.
WITH WHAT MONEY WILL THE GOVERNMENT RAISE WELFARE WITH
Implying employers only employ workers who stimulate the economy or their business. No, often enoguh theyll employ anyway. particular industries like fruit and vegetable picking. Not only will they pick anyone, theyll hire "illegals" against the law to do so, theyll withhold peoples passports so they dont have to pay them at all. Theyll employ interns unpaid rolling on off for 6 months each. All the money is going to the CEO who will not spend it, instead horde like the razorback hog they are.
These things shouldnt be necessities in budgets, but human rights provided by the state. Either way, see previous point where many people dont have surplus income, so they have to work multiple jobs, and even then end off with very little.
the proofs (that food produced by 'smaller, more ethical companies' can feasibly be introduced into the dietary plan of your average working person without much difference in living costs) is on you buddy
the right food is going to be fast-food porky slop if you work 2 jobs for minimum wage in like 99% of the world
It's not, but then its not the right food. The cheap food is the stuff thats bad for you and is quickly churned out. Much of the united states is surrounded by it with no option to even go into debt buying gourmet cheese cus they live in a food desert
How can they underpay people if we have minimum wage laws (this applying to a typical worker)?
So is everything else like inflation and technological level.
Trade with other countries from the value produced from automated machines
They still get the value of the workers' labor despite it being unfair and basically slavery. A worker makes, say, $15 of value an hour but doesn't get any of themselves – if they didn't make that $15 then they would not be employed.
That's a problem of the government and either way the people that this happens to don't number all that much relative to a standard worker. Labor conditions are a problem across the world but that doesn't mean they haven't eventually gotten better, or won't again.
People already get that with food stamps and such, and either way the difference between more luxurious foods and basic foods is fuzzy, it's a continuum. A $5 item, versus a $50 item of the same type of food, and then in between $10, $20 items…
A few dozen more dollars per month on food is kind of just a dent compared to what people spend per month on restaurants, impulse purchases, various subscriptions and so forth.
I don't know, but if people weren't buying sustainable food then why is it on the market? If people couldn't really afford it then it would stop being produced because of supply and demand. Even if better food costs percentage-wise more it's still not a lot, just like 5 × 1.5 = 7.50.
im asking for hard data not your gut feelings
How can they underpay people if we have minimum wage laws (this applying to a typical worker)?"
Its clear you dont have a lick of leftish economic theory in you, so let me explain. A workers wage is not indicative of their actual labour, how much work they are doing. These people are underpaid because their work, hard manual labour at long hours, is paid at minimum wage, sometimes not paid at all if the employer uses modern slavery. Where as the CEO is over paid, not by his literal wealth, but by how much labour he is inputting, ie, zero.
You are explaining my point for me and i thank you. Peoples money is worth less as days go by, so whatever surplus money they do have is pissing away.
Are you a libertarian or an ancap or something cus you are displaying so little knowledge on how countries get their income its astounding. which countries are they going to be trading with? If its a country without the automation, then whatever it is your purchasing has been produced unethically.
With your point regarding labour value. Yes, if someone makes absoloutely zero value from their labour, they arent employed. Which is why nearly everyone is, in some way or capacity, is capable of employment. You can go clean shit, or sit and think of ways shit gets cleaned easier, both are labour and both are worth something. Unless you are a literal vegetable on life support, your labour creates value.
With regards to the passports, it is a reguatory problem, in so much as the government refuses to crack down because they make money from it too, even though its already illegal. Theres always going to be the shitty jobs that no one wants to do, but theres going to be even more jobs that no one wants to pay for, and working conditions are horrendous.
You have zero clue, dont you. Supply and demand isnt real, and the market isnt self regulating.
I didn't know, that wires play such a huge role in the life of the average american, that they pay almost 100 $ every year for it?!
I’m not a radlib if that’s what you’re trying to say. I’m planning on dropping out of the rat-race within the next decade
If you're even slightly left-of-center…or hell centrist at all, well I'll put a round through you when it's time. I'll just let nature devour your corpse and will consider it an honor to kill a fellow AnPrim for being a leftist faggot. May death find you quickly.
Please user. I just want to end your suffering. I can't have you fly that flag while expousing leftist-think at all because it goes against Nature itself. I'll take you with a stick or my fists. I don't care if you are armed. You must be killed.
good luck getting people who barely scrape by (majority of people) to spend extra on feeling morally superior