this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
725 points (99.2% liked)

memes

21235 readers
2023 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 111 points 1 month ago (9 children)

I posted this comment already yesterday but i'll post it again because it's still relevant:

Do we want to get higher wages? The obvious answer might seem “yes”. But i argue it’s not that obvious.

People should be able to live without being forced to work. When your only income is from wages, that effectively forces you to work. I think we should strive for a society where basic needs are fulfilled even without jobs.

[–] Trihilis@ani.social 28 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Personally i think that unless you're disabled everyone should work. Where I live everyone has basic healthcare, cheap schools and there are lots of unions and workers rights so literally no one has to work more than 32 hours for a basic level of living. If youre disabled you receive wellfare so you dont have to work. Its literally a choice if you live on the streets here.

I have literally no idea why the US has such a horrible and oppressive system when it comes to workers rights, healthcare and schooling. I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a good idea to have a two party system. I have no idea why the rich barely pay any taxes there. You have a truly corrupt and inhuman system in place.

[–] nile_istic@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's because we were a nation founded by violence and oppression and built on the backs of a slave race, none of which are practices we ever truly abandoned.

You have healthcare, affordable schooling, and labor unions because, wherever you are, your populace is considered a workforce, not a slave race. When your society relies on a workforce, you want them healthy so they can work longer, you want them educated so they can work smarter, and you want them comfortable enough with their salaries and their hours to feel they can afford to have kids, who will one day join the workforce.

Governing bodies in the US don't need us healthy, smart, or comfortable. They just need us to 1) work (hence tying our healthcare to our work hours), and 2) breed (hence minimal sex education, poor access to contraception, abortion bans, etc).

They don't need to give us healthcare (or education, or basic human necessities or rights), because as long as we're breeding, it's cheaper if we just die. And if that ever bothers us enough to take to the streets (which it has, many times), our local police forces are highly militarized and have no qualms about doing to us what their white ancestors did to my native and black ones (which they have, many times).

And to be clear, this isn't meant to be a woe-is-America spiel. These are problems that we've had many opportunities to address over the years, but let hubris, bigotry, and plain old stupidity get in the way. This is very much a mess of our own making, so I'm not trying to throw a pity party, just addressing your confusion.

TL;DR: Violence, oppression, and slavery. The tried and true American way.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You left off they want you poor so you're more likely to commit crimes, like stealing food, so they can put you in jail and now use you for actual slave labor where its still legal.

[–] quarkquasar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

America: 4% of the world's population

20-25% of the world's prisoners

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But your BigMac costs a dollar less because of it!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lordziv@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 month ago

The irony of assuming that it's cheaper to let people grow old and die when the reality is a senior pension requires the income of two working aged citizens to subsidize it is not lost on me.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

The US specifically didn't choose a two party system. We accidentally set one up. The math proving that FPTP has a 100% guaranteed chance to devolve into a two party system hadn't been done until the mid 1800s

[–] andxz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

The problem with that is there are doctors with individual opinions gatekeeping that welfare. One might think you're disabled, while another might think you can get better. I've been stuck in just that kind of limbo for almost a decade. I'm required to look for a job each month that everyone involved knows I could never do, and so I have to live on the bare minimum until I reach some arbitrary threshold to get the pension I should've gotten a long time ago.

Meanwhile my family suffers, I have to spend what little I get on the medicine keeping me breathing and when I finally get it I'll be too far gone to have any time left.

All this because I happened to get a disease rare enough that there are no experts and it just so happens to interact with the asthma I already had in unpredictable ways.

So tell me, who should decide who's disabled and who isn't?

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Because your favorite authors, screenwriters, poets, bands would be homeless under what counts as "work," or they'd not have the time, money, energy to invest in their preferred work.

[–] Trihilis@ani.social 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is exactly why my country subsidizes art so people are still encouraged to make. I guess the US doesn't have that either.

[–] Soulg@ani.social 3 points 1 month ago

If it's a good idea, it's safe to assume it doesn't exist in the US. You'll be correct much more often than not.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago

Is there competition for the subsidies?

[–] Saturnalia@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

I agree. "Starving artist" should not be a common phrase.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

I don't understand why anyone thinks it's a good idea to have a two party system.

It doesn't matter if the candidate you're voting for supports the two party system. This current election is the most important one of our lifetimes. So we'll keep voting for people who support the two party system because of the two party system.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Its literally a choice if you live on the streets here.

What if you can't find work for whatever reason (e.g. there's high unemployment and not enough jobs for everyone, or the person is somehow considered "unemployable," but not necessarily disabled)? What about single parents with infants/toddlers? Are there a lot of "bullshit jobs" where you live?

[–] Trihilis@ani.social 2 points 1 month ago

We have a social rent system in place for that, it means the government will pay part of the rent. Also if you cant work because you have kids there is a system in place for that too, you receive benefits (which is based on minimum wage).

Basically everyone pays taxes on their wage here to make sure no one has to live on the streets. There is lots of social housing here.

[–] yyyesss@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

at this point, most of us were born into it.

by the time we were born, it was so entrenched nothing but horrible bloodshed could change it.

we've been inundated with news and media since early childhood not to rise up for that change and many of us have (until recently) been left comfortable enough that we don't want to risk what remains.

we've been made to believe (by the aforementioned propaganda) that we can vote in real change. some of us still want this to be true. it's becoming apparent this may not be the case. we're terrified.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Even if change can be voted in, its pretty obvious now that it can be undone pretty easily as well. Change is at best temporary.

[–] BilSabab@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

except the national economies aren't organized in a way to enable any form of UBI.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] BilSabab@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it's not like governments are trying to get there when it's not an election season though

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Elections aren't going to save you.

[–] BilSabab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean Somalia is right there, mate

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] BilSabab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

exactly. If elections ain't doing the trick, Somalia is doing all of the tricks

[–] FippleStone@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago

Saying "exactly" when someone questions a nonsensical retort is neither an explanation nor an elaboration

[–] flamingleg@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

national economies handle being welfare states just fine, which isn't so different from what a UBI would be. Also developed service economies live and die by consumption. A UBI would stabilise and stimulate domestic consumer demand.

[–] Darcranium@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Comingle app (beta) is seeking to start our own UBI without relying on the government to do it for us. Seems very promising

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Darcranium@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's a nonprofot org which basically just does monthly UBI to your bank account when you sign up... They did the math and it turns out you only need a few thousand people of diverse economic backgrounds for it to be viable.

From what I understand it's like a phone banking app, but more secure, and it takes something like 10% of your earnings each month, then returns a lump sum to everyone of around $500 almost immediately. So people earning $40k/yr will net a couple hundred dollars per month. If you make nothing that month you will get closer to $1000 People who make $100k/yr will lose a couple hundred dollars. And the multimillionaires will lose a couple Gs a month (which sounds like a lot but it's negligible to them).

https://youtu.be/mo9FsrSXZww

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the multimillionaires

Why would any of them do this instead of charity donation that they can deduct from their taxable income?

[–] Darcranium@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Great question. So this money goes directly to people, instead of through a charity. We are cutting out the middle man, and it affects EVERYONE with cash, not just a select few who know how to benefit from the charity and qualify for their supplies or whatever the charity provides. It's awesome for us, but not as awesome for the billionaires and multimillionaires. The only real benefit for them is, they get to keep their heads!

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We should strive for that society, sure, but that's going to take generations. Meanwhile, people need to eat today.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

It will only take 1 generation willing to fight for the change.

Or don't wait, and start doing things French style today.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

Every take that excludes this perspective is ableist.

Just my two cents as a person who was born and will die disabled.

[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There should be a clear definition of what "basic needs" means. Opinions will vary greatly when you broaden the discussion.

I'd define it as such:

  • Health care (this includes good food and water)
  • Housing
  • Transport
  • Education & Information systems
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Medical care

Housing

Food

Water

Internet

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the cited comment is the most "shit firstworlders say" ever.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

It’s an ideological position, yes we should be striving for a non-ableist society

[–] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

If you're capable of working, you should work. It should be a fair wage and billionaires shouldn't exist. Our society should support those who can't work.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I'll tell you what. I have had to interact with some people in retail or fast food who were technically able to work, but I really wish they didn't. I would chip in some money from every paycheck for those people to stay home, do something they enjoy. Maybe do a kind of work they are good at, but doesn't pay much. Some people are born with the drive to be a ceo, nfl level athlete or what not. Some are born eith the drive to solve problems, help people, or what not but also to relax. And some people are born with no drive at all. They are capable of working, but the lack of drive means they will never be any good at it. So if you don't force people to work, you will find most still will in some form. And the ones who don't... it's better for all of us that they don't.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why? We don't have enough work for the number of people that our work can sustain. Our ancestors literally dreamt of a time when the labor of a few could allow the leisure of the masses. We would be better served at this point addressing workaholic tendencies and refocusing that energy into something they actually enjoy doing.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Then you should work ten hours a week (if you can of course) or whatever the number it takes for us to provide for everyone. Nobody should be forced to work for the boss' profit but everyone has to contribute their fair share to the common good. And before you object with "well I would just help out because it's the right thing to do" - of course you would, most people would. But don't think for a second that the people who are the wealthy now would ever willingly do a thing to contribute, and the rules should be equitable for everyone.

If you’re capable of working, you should work

in what country do you live, if i may ask?

[–] mdurell@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Explain what you mean by "should work." What qualifies as "work" and who makes the determination that it is valid or correct?

load more comments (1 replies)