zipzoopaboop comments on Microsoft laying off about 6,000 people, or 3% of its workforce

[–] zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Because have fun doing anything about it while scrambling to survive

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] gradual@lemmings.world -26 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

Oh fuck off with this 'survive' nonsense.

Literally every bitch I know in America complaining about "not having enough money" spends it like a goddamn idiot.

Doordash every day. Subscriptions out the wah-zoo for things they can be getting for free.

You'd better believe most of them are going to be buying a switch 2 instead of emulating.

Oh, and the thought of moving somewhere cheaper? Forget about it. It's "not good enough" for them.

No, they get no sympathy from me. They all deserve what's coming to them and I hope it hits hard.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] JigglypuffSeenFromAbove@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It kinda sounds like you're shaming people simply for spending their money on entertainment, food or better living conditions. That kind of take can come off like saying, "you’re poor, so you don’t deserve to enjoy anything."

I get that there are alternatives like pirating, but that doesn't really solve the bigger issue: we shouldn't have to resort to that in the first place.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] confusedbytheBasics@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I'll shame someone for using door dash. No able bodied person deserves servants to both cook for them and deliver hot food to them from across town. That is an incredible privilege that should be reserved for those truly in need or as an expense luxury.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] gradual@lemmings.world -12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

No, it's not "all or nothing." You people keep pretending that's what I'm arguing for because you don't want to acknowledge your own contribution to the problem. The person I was replying was trying to argue 'survival,' and now here you are moving the goalposts to 'wants.'

They keep conflating needs with wants, so whoever takes their wants away is immediately a bad person.

They don't need more money. As soon as they get more, they're going to spend more on more dumb shit while there are still starving children on the planet.

but that doesn’t really solve the bigger issue

It does if enough people do it.

we shouldn’t have to resort to that in the first place.

Correct, but we don't live in a perfect world.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JigglypuffSeenFromAbove@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

You make some good points and I see where you're coming from, but I think that person used the term "survive" figuratively. Even so, when you say the world is not perfect you're kind of oversimplifying the situation by making it seem like things are the way they are because of some unfortunate event no one can control, when in reality things are designed to be harder for people with less money, and I'll try to use your own examples to show that.

Streaming: Remember when we only had Netflix and it had a full extensive catalog, no ads and was much more affordable? Then studios started splitting content just to make more profit, and now every year we pay more to get less content. Even basic plans with ads are going up. You mentioned pirating, but that’s not exactly easy or accessible for everyone, not to mention it’s a legal gray area (which is another discussion on its own).

Delivery: Sure, no one needs to order takeout, but even cooking at home is getting expensive, especially if you want to eat healthy. If you’re trying to save money you basically have to buy stuff loaded with sugar and fat or use shit ingredients, it's like they're trying to slowly kill us.

Living: let's not pretend there's not a housing crisis going on for a while, where people with money are buying up everything just to rent it back out to other people with money. Meanwhile everyone else is getting pushed to unsafe areas with poor living conditions.

(Also, just saying, that whole "fuck you" attitude of yours doesn’t really help with anything.)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] gradual@lemmings.world -6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

Streaming: Remember when we only had Netflix and it had a full extensive catalog, no ads and was much more affordable?

Yes, but even then I never subscribed to netflix because free streaming sites had more content for free. They still do. You really have no idea how disconnected you are from people who legitimately need more money and scrutinize everything they spend it on. It's called privilege.

Delivery: Sure, no one needs to order takeout, but even cooking at home is getting expensive

Wait... what? You're saying it's getting expensive to cook at home, so the solution is to spend more money on delivery? Is this satire?

If you’re trying to save money you basically have to buy stuff loaded with sugar and fat or use shit ingredients

What the fuck? Are you seriously suggesting that it's better to get doordash because eating at home is "too expensive and unhealthy"?

Living: let’s not pretend there’s not a housing crisis going on for a while

That's because people have been conditioned to rent instead of own. Most of the people complaining about housing are living above their means and think they deserve more before people who have less. For example, I guarantee most of the people on these forums complains about not having enough money while spending $1,000+/month on rent in a major city.

They could live more modest lives in more rural areas, but "that's not good enough for them." Saying "there are no jobs" is a load of bullshit and I guarantee none of them are talking from experience.

(Also, just saying, that whole “fuck you” attitude of yours doesn’t really help with anything.)

I'm holding people accountable for their contributions to the problem. They want to consume guilt-free and get mad at anyone who calls it out.

I don't expect them to change no matter what. It would take an act of god to beat the consumerism out of this generation.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

They could live more modest lives in more rural areas

Living in a rural area for many people is literal hell, on top of having an array of less obvious costs. The big one is going from not needing a car to needing one. Your rent might drop $500 but you need to spend a lot on gas, insurance, maintenance, etc.

Also the social options might fall off a cliff. Humans are social creatures. I live in a city and I can walk to dozens of social activities, many of them free. Board game meetups, free music in the park, free museums with tours, free sport leagues, etc. Out in the countryside there just aren't as many options.

If you're queer or another minority, you might also have a worse time in the countryside. Maybe even fatally. A city is going to have a queer scene.

Also, there are likely more jobs in the city. Remote work and economic upheaval have changed things, but even so, most of those offices in Manhattan are full of jobs. There's just more stuff where there's more people.

Now, to your point, some people are certainly living in a $5900/mo apartment with a doorman and in-building gym that they can't afford. They could move to a less "nice" place in south Brooklyn or Queens for less than half that, likely at the cost of a longer commute, and losing easy access to a neighborhood they feel a part of. There is a housing crisis though, and people are getting priced further away. That's probably not going to be solved any time soon because capitalism doesn't care and will happily eat itself.

Anyway. Long tangent but I'm extremely pro city so I spoke up.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments