Ahdok @ ahdok @ttrpg.network Posts 123Comments 824Joined 2 yr. ago
While it's true that new inventions do make people's lives materially better, the point that's being missed is... this is an inevitable consequence of the development of society, we'd have these new inventions regardless of our economic systems or choices of where to tax people, or economic policy. Those benefits aren't caused by the widening wealth gap, and the wealth of billionaires isn't required for new inventions to be made.
What we're talking about here, specifically, is that people are producing more wealth, but not getting wealthier. The wealth of people has "effectively stayed constant since the 1980s" but the total wealth we're creating has gone up significantly. It's certainly nice that we have more things we can spend that wealth on, but that's a distraction from the issue of where the rest of the wealth is going.
If you actually look at people's lives, "materially" and look past the inevitable march of technology, what else is happening? 70% of people are "living paycheck to paycheck"; poverty, and child poverty are massively increasing; many schools can't afford to give children textbooks; and teachers have to buy school supplies out of their own meager paychecks; the cost of healthcare is increasing, leaving many unable to afford it (or in non-USA countries, where everyone can afford healthcare, waiting lists are increasing due to poor funding); Towns are bankrupt and can't afford to repair infrastructure; the quality of most goods (clothes, houseware, and furniture especially) are decreasing to the point where they fall apart in a few years; and most public services are on the verge of collapse.
The cost of housing is so high that younger generations don't even aspire to own a home any more, the cost of higher education is so high that people expect their student debts to never be paid.
So yes, it's nice that we have Facetime and Playstations, Those things do make our lives better... but you have to consider, if the "increased productivity" of workers was going towards society and making our lives better instead of enriching billionaires, could we address some of this?
Your first argument is, again, very American-centric - yes the rate that wealth inequality is growing in the USA is less pronounced than in other places, but it was always pretty bad in the USA. The argument that "trends are similar in almost every developed country" is also a little disingenuous - it's true for the G8. In many European countries, they're actually taxing the wealthy sensibly and putting that money into public services to make everyone's lives better, the wealth gap is much smaller and the quality of life and happiness of regular people is better.
Again "a century ago" or longer doesn't matter because it's pre-industrial revolution. The total amount of "wealth to go around" was much smaller, and we were living under very different systems.
If a king or an emperor owns 50% of the wealth of a nation, and everyone else is equal, then yes, your graph will show "the top 1% have 50% of the wealth" but also your system is specifically designed to give all the money to one person. Arguing "well 100 or 200 years ago this was worse" is moot, because we're comparing different systems... Unless your point is that our current system is also designed to deprive all wealth and comfort to the masses to enrich a select few, and we should be "thankful" that it's less good at it.
We have to compare within the same system, and look for the best we can do. Unless you're specifically arguing that the wealth distribution in the 1970s is unsustainable, then that's an example of when we were capable of doing better, and it's okay to find that as something to aspire and build towards.
Lobbying your representatives for better worker protections is a joke, especially in America. Many representatives in the USA don't even hold surgeries, you can't talk to them directly. You can write them a letter, which they ignore. Rich corporations pay our representatives massive donations to their campaigns (or in other countries, they pay them via more circuitous routes), and they get the policy that benefits them.
Here's an example - Back at the start of the Trump administration, a bill was written by the house to make it legal for ISPs to sell your private information and browsing history to corporations for their own profits. A number of polling institutions went around and took some credible large-scale polls of public opinion about this. 98% of respondents opposed the bill. The legislation passed congress and is now law. Who's "lobbying" of congress matters? individuals, or Comcast?
There are a very small number of US representatives who refuse to take money from large corporations - and those, in general, seem to hold the interests of the people to heart. Before "lobbying your representatives" can work, there needs to be widespread grassroots movements to elect more of these people. Until that happens, there aren't representatives, there are rulers.
It's not inflammatory to argue for better systems. It's not a lie that while we've had a massive industrial revolution that increased the productivity of workers, those benefits have not been seen by the workers. We still work just as long, and just as hard, for an ever diminishing amount of the pie. You can say "oh but you have a fancy car" but... just look at the percentage of people who own their own home by generation. The current trends are extremely concerning and need to change.
I think this happened once in Buffy.
Fortunately, Faelys is an unreliable narrator.
There were some fairly major studies in the UK last year, across many companies and multiple industries, where they reduced the 5 day workweek to a 4 day workweek, whilst keeping the compensation of workers the same overall (i.e. salaried workers got the same salary, hourly workers got 25% more per hour)
The majority of companies involved in the study found that their workers were significantly healthier and happier after adjusting to the new schedule... and as a result significantly more "productive". Profits even went up despite the reduced working time. Most of them elected to keep with the new system once the study ended.
Obviously you can't do this with every industry, certain industries need 24/7 coverage or the like... you can't run an ER 4 days out of 7 - but the takeaway is that it'd be better to employ more people for less time and pay them well - you'll get better results than you will with an exhausted and depressed workforce
I'm not talking about the single outliers at the top, but about the "billionaire class" in general, it's a pretty modern concept. There's a reason I said "Average" and not "Richest"
Yes, if we go back to before 1900 the wealthiest people had more of the pie, but this is largely a product of the bottom of society having, essentially, nothing. 1800s societies were capable of producing enough for (most people) to survive, and there wasn't much excess "wealth" to go around. While the rich collected most of that, the difference is in the scale of "available resources." It's not a comparable system when most of your population are serfs.
I don't find it encouraging to say "oh well, this isn't unique, look it used to be like this 100 years ago!" when 100 years ago the quality of life for regular people was abysmal.
The fact that your graphs show wealth inequality steadily growing is the major concern. We had a more equitable society in the 1970s by a long shot. Our current state isn't inevitable, it's a result of the policies we've implemented. With current trends, do we want our society to return to those dynamics of the1800s? In a world where we've so much automation and wealth in the world that we could care for everyone why do people still have to work 40+ hours a week just to get by?
Funny you should say "we" and "American History" though :) Maybe the American model is the problem here.
"Worker productivity" has been going up for 50 years, but compensation hasn't been. That extra money goes into the pockets of the board and shareholders and CEOs.
80 years ago, the average CEO pay was about 20x the lowest pay in his company. Now, instead, we have billionaires.
Aw man, imagine using technology to reduce the amount of time people had to spend working, rather than making rich people more money... what a crazy world.
There's a reason I left garlic off the list ;)
Sores, boils, pock marks, blotchiness...
Maglubiyet's curse just makes goblins a little bit "worse" in every conceivable way.
Konsi actually has extremely good skin for a goblin, mostly because she's free of Maglubiyet's curse - but she has difficulty recognizing beauty in herself.
With a little help:
I've always used art-deco designs when working on my gnome inventions in DnD... it's a little wrong for proper steampunk stuff, (no steam engines in DnD) but a mixture of clockwork and art-deco makes for some really great designs.
I legitimately think it'd be cool if the base sending spell had "at higher levels, you can send an extra pair of messages in the conversation for each level above level 3"
The piano is actually there because we needed a ballroom to entertain some NPCs for a political summit. Several of the servants in the mansion were skilled in instrument use, so we made a small area for performers.
The Dragon Skull is in the sand of a fighting/training pit for the party's fighter. She basically took out a red dragon single-handedly during one of our adventures, and it's a replica of that dragon's skull that we couldn't take away as a trophy because the dungeon collapsed.
Alright, I admit it. I don't have a token for that.
No, I'm not lumping dwarves in with "human, elf, half-elf". Elves and Half-elves in many games are visually very similar to humans, sometimes a bit taller sometimes a bit skinnier, but often near indistinguishable apart from the ears. Personally, I'm a big fan of games that make their elves more "weird" so they feel more fantastical - but those are pretty rare. Players who feel uncomfortable self-inserting into races that "don't resemble them" often find that elves and half-elves are close enough to not be a deal-breaker. (This can be seen fairly clearly in the BG3 choices - where elf and half-elf and human all have about the same number of players, but dwarf has significantly fewer players.)
There are plenty of games out there where humans are not "the default" and, yes, I'm largely talking about these. In my initial post I did talk about how this is not so problematic in DnD.
I'm intrigued by your statement "I'll always play a human unless I have a good reason not to, this is because I base my characters about a theme and want the focus to be on that." - Why is it the case for you that you can focus on the story/theme with a human, but not with gnome or an elf or a dwarf? If your theme or stories vary from one human character to another, then race isn't playing into your focus... so wouldn't this also work if your characters were all dwarves?
In my many campaigns of 5e DnD, I've actually now played "gnome wizard" three times. All three were focused around their story and theme, and felt completely different to each other, both in personality, and in the main content of their character and story... The fact that the characters were gnomes wasn't really ever a significant part of their narrative. I don't really understand why this variety or focus would only be possible with humans.
GW2 is indeed a good example of the problem I've been discussing, where the worldbuilding and play experience have a disconnect. It's probably the largest IP where that disconnect is noticeable to regular players.
I have, in fact, played many games where the designers have made humans "bad" or "boring" on purpose to discourage players from that, and even some where they explicitly advertised their games as such - because they want their games to be fantastical. I've played plenty of games where the designers built a bunch of races to populate their universe, and explicitly cut humans out of the game altogether, because they're always viewed as a default if they're included, and they wanted their players to immerse in the worldbuilding they'd made.
I've read fantasy books where the authors have specifically talked about avoiding having "humans" in their setting, because they believe the readers will automatically empathize with the human characters by default, and they wanted complex factional politics where the reader was capable of choosing any of the characters on different sides of a conflict as the one they identified best with.
This does happen in fantasy game design, especially from designers who are more concerned with baking in-depth cultures and variety into their settings. Often these are smaller indie projects with less visibility though.
There is an advantage of "baby's first introduction to the idea that different peoples can have different cultures, and they're all valuable." - for some people they've never experienced or ever thought about this... and it's "simpler" to grasp than (the much better design) of different regions having different cultures, and each region having a mix of races.
On the other hand, there's a massive disadvantage in portraying "all people of this race are (stereotype x), all people of that race are (stereotype y)"
DMs and GMs, this is a place where you can shine with your worldbuilding. Make towns that have a mix of races, and give towns their own culture. It's worth it and much more immersive.
That's why Faelys is holding that paper up - so she can read it and not mess it up.