“This ‘groundbreaking’ AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that’s a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.”
So basically less than one percent of Americans should be unhappy about what they’re being paid. They could live in a shack with no running water, but because they’re worth $9000, they have no right to complain.
That’s really what you think?
Yep. They should understand that they still have more wealth than the vast majority of people ever to walk to Earth. Not many Americans are in that position though. The problem is that $9k “isn’t a lot” in the US because most of our money is being siphoned by those richer than us.
If we reduced the disparity in wealth, $9k could be a lot.
It’s important we help out those at the bottom, not those towards the top. Even below “America’s” poverty line, you’re still globally more wealthy than most people can ever hope to be. As soon as you make more money, prices get up so the world’s poorest continue to stagnate. This is why inflation is a good thing for the ruling class.
If I’m worth $9000, I am at the bottom. And I’m living like the people in third world countries. You sound like you’re coming from a very privileged position and do not know what poverty in America is like. There are children literally starving in this country because their parents can’t afford to feed them enough, even with food assistance. And then there’s healthcare. Good luck if you have a long-term or chronic illness in America. In plenty of third-world countries, they still have socialized medicine.
But if you’re worth $9000 in America and you have cancer, you have no right to complain. Just die. This is your logic.
Poverty in America is nothing compared to poverty in Africa, or most parts of the world.
Ironic how you say I’m the one speaking from a position of privilege.
On the children starving in the US, it’s usually because parents are struggling to pay rent. Rent goes up when they make more money. The system is designed to keep people barely alive so they’re in no position to change it. Just work and pay bills till you literally can’t do it anymore.
I think the US should have universal healthcare, so I’m not sure what your point on cancer is.
I’m not going to argue the person worth $9k in the US should make more money just so it can be funneled to landlords and executives. I’m going to argue landlords and executives should be making less profit so those with less money can be catered to as well. The only way they’ll make less if they’re forced to, and that involves spreading out away from the most expensive places to live. Not “making more money.” All the latter does is drive up inflation, which is what we’re seeing now.
You clearly are.
And it doesn’t matter what America should have. We are talking about America as it is now. And, based on your logic, anyone in America today with a long term or chronic disease that can’t afford to pay for it should just die. Their family has no right to complain that they can’t afford care.
They also have no right to complain, according to you, if they can’t afford electricity or plumbing.
If you can’t afford electricity, plumbing or healthcare, how is your life different from people living in poverty in Africa? What is the effective difference? Other than, according to you, having no right to complain.
No, that’s where the irony comes from. You think poverty in America is comparable to poverty in Africa.
It does matter what American’s ‘should have.’ You’re trying to argue they ‘should have’ more money. I’m arguing they should have to pay less.
Here you go saying ‘x doesn’t have a right to complain.’ I told you before, everyone has a right to complain about anything. It’s called freedom of speech and I support it.
If you can’t afford any of that stuff in the US, there are plenty of social programs to help you out that you will not get in Africa. The fact you’re trying to conflate the two just speaks to your position of privilege. You really don’t know how bad things are outside of the US.
If you can’t afford food in the US, we have EBT. If you can’t afford housing, we have government assisted housing that can literally cover your expensive apartment rent.
If you can’t afford that stuff in Africa or most of the world, you die of starvation and suffer from exposure. Not to mention that being in a nation of excess also results in a higher quality of life all around you, such as from the infrastructure you benefit from. You can wash your face in a McDonald’s, that’s better than the slumwater of Burundi.
Such as? Which ones do all people in poverty qualify for? If that’s true, why do people live in shacks without electricity or running water? Do they choose to live that way for the fun of it? Is this one of those “they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps” thing?
And if people don’t have the right to complain, I guess the actors have the right to do what they’re doing and you have no point.
I edited my previous post to highlight the benefits of social programs in the US.
I never said the actors don’t have a right to do what they’re doing. My point was, from the beginning, that they will get no sympathy from me for doing it. Why does that bother you so much?
And yes, believe it or not, some people do choose to live in shacks without any electricity or running water.
In fact, everyone I met living that lifestyle was doing it because of choice (or mental health, but it’s a different discussion to identify which.)