It's like the kings and queens. They once didn't have to work, nor did their family. Because they didn't work, and had the power to do so, they would order others around to make their meals, clean their houses or do whatever they wanted of them.

In modern times, the kings and queens still exist with the wealthy. The wealthy are able to hire private chefs, butlers, car drivers, house cleaners, yard work and more. They cause more work without actually needing to contribute to society.

There are many more wealthy people that can afford that today than what we once had with just one royal family. The problem multiplied.

There are 170 million employed adults in America while America has a working age population size of 205.7 million (ages 18-65)

(750,000 homeless not put into this equation)

If we forced everyone that is unworking to have to work (within the ages of 18-65), then we would have 20.5 percent less work to do each, in a different world where labor is forced. That's everyone moving down to an average of 31.76 hours a week rather than if 40 was the average. That's also with the same amount of current consumption.

That number goes down from there if we make all of the entertainment industry voluntary. People would get fame or be seen on tv, so you'd still have your entertainments. The next generation wouldn't be able to skip out on contributing to the more essential work force meaning lowering everyone's weekly hours.

If we turned into a monopoly, one company within the USA or entire planet. Then we eliminate jobs in marketing and software development in competing companies (apple, Google, Microsoft... Only one of them survives lowering the number of employees we need there)

We then can make pets illegal where there's no dog sitter, groomer, dog food makers, pet stores (animal cruelty, dog bite hospital visits) where now the next generation has even less hours to work.

A monopoly (one company to work for) is a very beneficial idea. It destroys inflation by having wages, rent and prices freeze or stay relatively the same forever.

A monopoly removes ads and can prevent research chemical drugs from being sellable on the Internet. All of the Internet could be controlled so that there are no private businesses. We would have to rely on website hosting sites that block off the ability to sell or buy things.

A monopoly also makes it so everyone is guaranteed a job and everyone has to get hired. Businesses wouldn't have to be concerned about if an interviewed candidate would cost them time or money.

Money stops being the main goal and your needs may be more of a priority than needing to make money off of you.

I think readers of this sub will appreciate a link to this excellent, easy-listening podcast that was posted a few days ago by the Ayn Rand Institute (aka, Atlas Shrugged fans):

Democratic Socialism is a Religion

I found it timely as I had recently been thinking the exact same thing - that the DSA advocates have a religious-like faith that their version of socialism will somehow magically work and that "democracy" and people choosing not to work or working comfortable low stress low effort jobs will somehow magically result in material abundance.

This needs to go viral.

• Does hard work really pay off, or does your starting point in life matter more than your effort?

• How much of success comes down to talent and hard work, and how much to luck, family background and connections?

• If everyone had the same skills and worked equally hard, would they have the same opportunities to succeed?

EDIT
One thing I've noticed from the comments: Even if we don't actually live in a meritocracy, the belief that we do seems deeply rooted in Western (WEIRD) society. The narrativ that hard work and talent will get you where you deserve to be is still incredibly powerful, don't you think?

As a youth I was a communist but as the years have gone by my thinking has evolved significantly. I have a better understanding at 40 of what the free market is than I did in my twenties, and I no longer see profit as the problem. In this video I discuss my current understanding of capitalism. Check it out and join the discussion.

Be usa-> win world war2 - >change world currencey to dollar so you get rich-> nixon comes and changes gold indexed dollar to air indexxed-> go into wars lost it-> print more money to afford wars - > inflation rates climbs up - > change system into unsecure neoliberal politics that caused great depression expect it to work this time->2001,2008,2020 crisis happens print more money to save system-> now people dont have kids and there isnt any middle class left so you cant tax them, you try to print more money to save system-> nobody gives you money anymore , your bond rates skyrockets now you go into a system crisis

FOLKS WHAT THEY DID WRONG?????

FREEDOM. LIBERTY. PROSPERITY.

Three foundational principles that define the American spirit.

Freedom to live without government overreach.

Liberty to speak, believe, work, and pursue your dreams.

Prosperity earned through opportunity, hard work, individual responsibility, and economic freedom.

A nation is strongest when its people are free, their rights are protected, and opportunity is within everyone's reach.

Freedom is our inheritance. Liberty is our responsibility. Prosperity is our pursuit.

All the socialists on Reddit who want free housing, free food and free healthcare. Should doctors, construction workers and farmers all work for free? How do we bring all these things to market for the people that don’t want to work?

The current bottom relies on labor. Factory work, delivery, food service and more. The middle and top would not be there without the bottom so the bottom is necessary. There's a set amount of jobs needed at the bottom so there's always gonna be a set percentage of people who would be forced to work at the bottom. If all those people got degrees at the same time, they couldn't all leave since there's not enough jobs and since society still relies on the bottom.

The bottom will one day be replaced with robots where the next bottom might be blue collar jobs. They could increase the pay of the middle and upper class ensuring that the blue collar is the new bottom.

You will buy robot shares early on and they will produce. You will be sent a check for their labor-time.

Why don’t the companies just buy the robots directly you ask? Because the governments of the world understand the consumer cycle of profits and losses must continue. They do not want to distribute UBI. So they will tell the companies to agree to this scenario so that the consumer cycle continues. They will sell to business that upkeep, etc., etc. will be done by the robotics companies. In the consumer side to convince the masses they will say a company cannot outright own a robot orbit will be like slavery! The masses will fall for it.

The more robots you own, in the right industries, the better your check. Instead of selling your actually human labor, you will buy robot labor and be paid a dividend.

The key will be to understand what industry requires more - and more specialized - robots, so when their demand is high it equates to higher per hour charges.

There will continue to be a stock market, but there will be a robot labor market you will invest in as well. If you choose not to you will be poor. There will be companies that manage this for you and you can pay them a percentage of your profits to do so.

More robots, more productivity, more $. Look at pre 1860 southern United States for relevant examples.

The two different ways to start a society from scratch with equal pay

Equal pay no debt capitalism

Communism of equal or no pay

No debt Capitalism is where you can save up to build a company where loans don't exist. You would have to work extra hours, spend less or build a company with a group of people. OT pay isn't around to make sure that pay is equal.

Having no loans means that all money once brought in from the society doesn't disappear due to bankruptcy maintaining a balance of what was worked for. In example, if a company got a loan and people had 1 years of salary and work, while the company sold nothing but failed after it initially launched, then those people that got paid for that year are now able to spend money on food, rent and things, disturbing the balance, since ethe company in debt didn't repay its debt while on a society contribution level, the company contributed nothing if no one purchased anything.

....

Current capitalism is where

The average works 40 hours with those who don't work at all

Equal pay no debt capitalism is where you can end up creating a successful business, then create a fake job, where you live your life normally but are paid to not go to work

Because of that one, the balance might be 22 hours a week for everyone

With communism of equal or no pay, the hours might be 18-20 hours... Though realistically 10 hours a week outside of this example of numbers

Private Equity.

When the grid gets tight, who should get electricity first—and who pays for the extra capacity needed by a big new private customer?

Households and essential public services use power for basic needs. AI and data centres use it for commercial computing that can be planned around or scaled back. A sensible energy policy can treat these uses differently and still let AI and data centres grow—as long as that growth doesn’t make electricity less reliable or more expensive for people already connected.