The weight of life, like an invisible hand, tightly chokes most people's throats. The essence of this pressure stems from the ancient and deep-rooted concept that only labor can be exchanged for subsistence food. When I first heard this, it seemed natural and impeccable. However, a closer look reveals that the underlying issues are a mess, complex and contradictory.
Who defines labor? And who holds the measure of labor? In ancient times, farmers sweated like rain and cultivated an acre of land before they could harvest the fruits of hardship with a load of grain. However, those high-ranking dignitaries can easily exchange hundreds of loads of grain for just a few meetings and a few meetings. Isn't the gap a concern?
Perhaps, someone will justify this injustice by saying that the dignitaries are the stewards of society, and their decisions and leadership are essential to the functioning of society, so they deserve more food. However, it is precisely this seemingly plausible explanation that invisibly exacerbates the class disparities in society. As time passed, the gentry piled up a mountain of food, while the peasants dwindled their food, and the rift in society widened as a result.
As a result, in this seemingly fair system of "those who don't work don't eat", an absurd phenomenon quietly breeds: the harder those who work, the more difficult it is to make ends meet. Those who are regarded as "lazy" are often able to obtain the necessities of life through various means.
However, most people choose to turn a blind eye to the causes and processes of this phenomenon. They only see the leisurely life of the "lazy people", but they ignore why they have become the way they are – because they are ruthlessly deprived of the fruits of their labor, or because production has become unprofitable? And where does the food that feeds the "lazy" come from?
In fact, this food is not a godsend from heaven, but from the wealthy strata of society. In the process, the resources of the wealthy class are redistributed and flow to the bottom of society. Such mobility not only narrows the gap between rich and poor in society, but also increases the vitality of the economy.
As a result, the people at the bottom were able to get rid of the shackles, dare to spend, and no longer be obsessed with saving. This change is undoubtedly beneficial to the development of society.
However, when we talk about the Great Depression of the last century, everyone can analyze the reasons for this in the first place – the capitalists made the workers work non-stop, leaving them with no time to spend, and eventually the economy collapsed. But why do many people become stubborn when it comes to the question of whether or not they should feed the "lazy"? Perhaps this is because this question touches on the deepest contradictions and complexities of human nature.
February**Dynamic Incentive Program Actually, this is essentially an art of language. When we say "raising lazy people", people tend to feel angry and dissatisfied because they feel that the fruits of their labor are being appropriated by others for no reason.
However, if we put it another way, such as "increasing social welfare and helping the people at the bottom", then people may be able to accept this concept more easily. Because it means that we are helping those in need, not indulging the "lazy people" who don't work for nothing.
However, in real life, many people often can't see their position clearly. They think they are those hard-working workers, but they don't know that they have actually fallen into the quagmire and become the "lazy man" who needs to be helped.
This cognitive illusion and contradiction is one of the most insurmountable weaknesses of human nature.