Perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them is feeding them feces instead of the promised food.
Or perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them while siphoning off their wallet is not actually doing them much good.
Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself, but neither is it good. When combined with proper regulation, it can lead to a lot of growth, while raising the tide for everyone. But when deregulated, or subverted with poor (or hostile) regulation, it results in... well... what we have today. Very few rich people building their fortunes on the backs of everyone else.
The issue with these comments is that you present no alternatives. Wealth is not something that exists by itself. Wealth exists because people create it. We have as much wealth as we do because people create so much.
You're complaining that the incentive to create (potentially becoming rich) itself is the problem. Well, okay, but what will replace it, while not causing everyone to do much less ?
Because if people do much less, then our wealth evaporates. And then well, as another comment put it, "some asshole is going to tell you you can't get healthcare".
Historically it can be put like this. There's 2 ways people were motivated:
* "do your job or we'll kill you" (slavery, but equally feodalism, communism, ...)
* "do your job and we'll reward you" (capitalism, and some related systems like mercantilism)
If you wish to reduce communism and socialism to the extreme "kill" state, you should do the same with capitalism. Those rewards offset (and frequently just barely offset) the costs of living. This means that capitalism can also be portrayed as "Do your job or you'll kill yourself."
The only real benefit is that people who have jobs can shed responsibility for a death due to a lack of working.
But that's talking in ridiculous extremes.
I'd say most people are motivated (not all, but most) to do work because they consider it to be the right thing to do. Most people want to provide for themselves; but capitalism doesn't always let them do so. If they have the wrong skills, live in the wrong area, or are otherwise incapable of earning enough to offset the cost of living, capitalism shifts the blame to them (Learn the right skills! Move to the right area! Don't get sick!) and leaves them behind.
> I'd say most people are motivated (not all, but most) to do work because they consider it to be the right thing to do.
People who have $100k jobs, like most here, perhaps. But that's a perspective that only comes with such jobs.
Do you seriously think McDonalds servers have this perspective ?
> Those rewards offset (and frequently just barely offset) the costs of living. This means that capitalism can also be portrayed as "Do your job or you'll kill yourself."
In theory, those jobs are meant to convey the message "improve yourself, or ...". Now I get that it probably doesn't feel like that but on the other side I must say that I know plenty of younger folks that certainly can learn how to program, but won't. Instead taking service jobs, being exploited, but also nobody expecting anything of them in terms of achieving something. They refuse to put in any kind of effort (including at those service jobs btw, where they are not exactly working at peak efficiency).
Now I understand this attitude, but let's not pretend that this isn't voluntary self-sabotage (I understand the psychology surrounding it may be hard to break out of, but ... well you have to), or that it's good for society to have lots of people like that.
Or perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them while siphoning off their wallet is not actually doing them much good.
Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself, but neither is it good. When combined with proper regulation, it can lead to a lot of growth, while raising the tide for everyone. But when deregulated, or subverted with poor (or hostile) regulation, it results in... well... what we have today. Very few rich people building their fortunes on the backs of everyone else.