- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
Only half?
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/26/map-shows-much-salary-spend-rent-different-areas-london-10072789/
London is more like 60-80%.
You know serfdom basically still exists in parts of the world. Why not go to one of those places and ask if they’d rather live there or in the USA?
One person’s pain does not diminish another’s.
I’m just saying the whole premise of the meme is extremely flawed. It’s made to imply that modern life is in any way as bad as medieval serfdom and that is just not true. For example, did you know that most medieval peasants didn’t own their own ovens and were forced to take the food they produced to someone else to cook it if they weren’t eating something that could be cooked on a simple hearth? Or that they literally weren’t allowed to leave the land they were assigned to without permission from their lord? Yeah things are bad today but they were way worse back then.
The meme isn’t literally saying modern life is ‘just as bad’ as medieval serfdom - it’s highlighting that despite almost unimaginable progress and development since then, economic and social conditions for the average person are becoming increasingly shit - and that the overlap in this venn diagram is a shameful rebuke of our complacency and the failings of the current system/those which are disproportionately benefiting under current uncertainty and exploitation.
In any case, suffering isn’t a competition - someone who’s circumstantially stuck in their shitty apartment paying off a lifetime of debt might be (more) free from the TB concerns and formal landlord permissions that medieval serfs had, but it doesn’t for a second mean that people are guaranteed a healthy, happy, prosperous life - or that anybody in a developed country has the ability or the capital to do what they want or go where they please. Shit, I can’t have 2 days to my fucking self without the ordained holy approval of my moron manager, in practice I’m no more free to venture or travel without affecting my livelihood when it comes to needing someone’s say-so.
Amazon workers pissing in bottles to raise their children in a society which increasingly expects the individual to bear all costs of life but will gladly subsidise corporate malpractice is a crappy situation - and farmers in 12th century England having it worse doesn’t diminish the shittiness of the situation for people alive today. I agree that historical literacy is important, but the meme doesn’t exist to insult the serfs, it begs us to avoid their plight with infinitely more resources, having won hard-fought battles to avoid that sort of lifestyle.
I don’t want to wait for the economic outlook gets even worse until we’re all living in Meta/Tencent company towns and sleeping in pod hotels eating gruel for a comparison to become fully valid.
I’m just saying the whole premise of the meme is extremely flawed. It’s made to imply that modern life is in any way as bad as medieval serfdom and that is just not true.
The image is just drawing a few parallels between modern life and medieval serfdom, not implying that one is equally as bad as the other. I think the larger point that the image is trying to make is that landlording is something we should have abandoned when we got rid of serfdom.
Bit we have social media.now
So things are MUCH better… right?
And no plagues!
oh wait
Keep going.
If that doesn’t hit close to home…
The commons is the one that hits hardest for me. In Washington State, you have to pay to use our state parks as well as the federal parks. They’re saying that we’re paying to park.
The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth. These resources are held in common even when owned privately or publicly.
This was an alternative to defunding the state parks completely.
Republicans didn’t want to pay for parks at all.
Requiring payment to enter the parks is a way to fund them without “taxes”.
Yes, all of that is what we are complaining about.
A library card can get you free access, at least the Vancouver one can.
Have you tried cycling?
Have you tried cycling to Deception Pass or Hurricane Ridge? Let me know how much fun that is.
Super fun and challenging, most likely. Some of the roads are likely difficult on a bike.Lots of other state parks that are accessible by bike besides those two. Heres a great list that includes a bunch.
Paying in $35/yr so the state parks can be maintained and improved is a very reasonable cost, especially with all the damage people and cars do to them.
Like Paradise at Mt. Rainier, Hoh Rain Forest, 4 Caves, and Wallace Falls. Actually at Wallace Falls, you can ride your bike once you get it there, but you might be chased and killed by a mountain lion. You can be killed as a hiker too, but people on bikes look like prey.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/survival/washington-bikers-fight-cougar/
I’m not anti-bike, I’m anti bike for everything and all situations. A lot of bike enthusiasts are not living in reality.
Edit: Also, because your poor and can’t afford parking, you can’t take your family? Or do you expect everyone to have bikes?
Neat article. Can you link me to one about the tens of thousands of mountain bikers in Washington that were not chased by cougars?
All outdoor activities in nature carry risk, some more than others. By far the most dangerous thing for cyclists is motorists, not wildlife. If you can safely navigate the roads to get to a park, your other risks are minimal in comparison.
I can’t get over your sense of entitlement on this. You think everyone is healthy enough to ride a bike and be excluded from the amazing views and experiences of national and state parks because they’re poor and drive a car? You are in a bubble. I’m glad you like bikes and feel that sense of superiority when you don’t have to pay parking. The point is, the commons have to be paid for.
Just make sure you never leave your F-150, in case a bear or cougar gets you. Wal-Mart parking lots are the most dangerous.
What are “the commons” in this case?
Not even close.
Elaborate?
Many would own neither their land nor their hovel. The lucky ones would own themselves, at least; the unlucky ones would not only not own themselves nor their hovel, but also not own their own fucking children - nearly half of England’s population was unfree. Of the free half, a majority of them would not have owned any land in any real sense. They lived on their lord’s sufferance.
Their access to the commons was dependent on the goodwill of their local lord, and, indeed, as the 14th century comes into play, that access is stripped as soon as it becomes more profitable for the local lord to sell the rights off.
10% of their harvest would go to the Church alone - not optional. Much more would go to their local lord simply for the privilege of existing - around 25% if you were free, closer to 50% if you were unfree. And that’s not getting into various other taxes, such as for anything sold, or to get permission to marry. And if you were unfree, you’d owe nearly half of your working days to your lord’s needs - without any recompense, in money or produce. On top of that, many taxes levied were irregular - ie whenever your lord thought he could get away with it.
This is a bit dramatized especially with “fucking children”. I’d like to see sources to back up such emotional claims, especially the chest-thumping parts eg. “Not own their children”. Families lived together and children weren’t treated like chattel. You exaggerated here. “Nearly half of your working days” is an overstatement and labor obligations were typically 2–3 days a week plus extra during harvest (boon days). So, about one-third of workdays, not half. Enclosing timing and large-scale commons stripping were much more severe in the 15th–16th centuries than the 14th. While some pressures started in the late 13th, it wasn’t yet widespread. Seems like you’ve got a strong opinion but flimsy research to back it up. I can see why you had to be pressured to write a complete response. Have a day.
This is a bit dramatized especially with “fucking children”. I’d like to see sources to back up such emotional claims, especially the chest-thumping parts eg. “Not own their children”. Families lived together and children weren’t treated like chattel. You exaggerated here.
“They weren’t chattel slaves, their children were just bound to lord and land in perpetuity”
Cool cool cool
“Nearly half of your working days” is an overstatement and labor obligations were typically 2–3 days a week plus extra during harvest (boon days).
Sunday off, at least pro forma.
Would you like to remind me what percentage 3 is of 6.
Enclosing timing and large-scale commons stripping were much more severe in the 15th–16th centuries than the 14th. While some pressures started in the late 13th, it wasn’t yet widespread.
“It was more severe later” doesn’t at all modify the point.
I can see why you had to be pressured to write a complete response.
I can see why you didn’t address the vast majority of my points, and why the points you did address, you did so without strong arguments.
Doesn’t know how to use a Venn Diagram (twice, not in the intersection)
Elaborate if you’re educated about it
Progress will never fail landlords
Well, if we go for economic contraction, shrinking population, automation and even wealth distribution, then the landlord will need to find other work.
