You are doing their job for them. A worker with slightly better prospects than others is still just a worker and ultimately still in the same precarious situation as they must still seek employment to earn a salary to live.
>ultimately still in the same precarious situation as they must still seek employment to earn a salary to live.
But earning a salary that, when used well, can last several YEARS of unemployment, makes them a very different category of worker. These are the last workers that need help, of all the world's workers.
Ultimately the parent comment is about accountability.
This is an extreme example, but if a billionaire kills another billionaire, would you "forgive" the perpetrator because the victim was relatively privileged compared to any other potential victim?
No. That's not how accountability works.
It is irrelevant here whether "even littler people" exist.
In some sense yes, if they couldn't live only from the return on their investments, they are technically a worker. That would be the Marxist definition but it's obviously more of a spectrum than a binary. CEOs in most large companies of course have enough wealth that they could live on that alone and they are only working as CEOs in order to increase that wealth. Their work also plays an anti-labour role in collaborating with the shareholder class against the interests of the worker.
automatic6131|2 years ago
But earning a salary that, when used well, can last several YEARS of unemployment, makes them a very different category of worker. These are the last workers that need help, of all the world's workers.
sureglymop|2 years ago
jrochkind1|2 years ago
kiliantics|2 years ago
robertlagrant|2 years ago