The actual premise is that your labor shouldn’t be exploited to produce products for the sole purpose of producing products, which make a few people rich while you get nothing. If we’re working to keep necessary services functioning, thats a different story. We can all do that as a society without a business/corporation telling us to do it.
“We want the zero hour work week!”
Vs
“nobody needs to work”
“We want the zero hour work week!” implies a desire to reduce the standard work week to zero hours. It suggests people still want to work and contribute value through their work, just with fewer required work hours.
“Nobody needs to work” is a broader statement that questions whether work itself is necessary. It could be interpreted as meaning that people should not be obligated or required to work at all, and that their basic needs should still be met without contributing labor.
Overall, the first sentence focuses more on reducing work hours while still valuing work itself. The second calls into question whether work is inherently needed for people to live and thrive. Both discuss reducing the role of work, but they have slightly different philosophical implications.
But that’s an entirely different premise than “nobody needs to work”…
Who said “nobody needs to work”?
The actual premise is that your labor shouldn’t be exploited to produce products for the sole purpose of producing products, which make a few people rich while you get nothing. If we’re working to keep necessary services functioning, thats a different story. We can all do that as a society without a business/corporation telling us to do it.
Literally the post.
Can you screenshot and circle that quote in the OP?
You can’t read the title of the post?
“We want the zero hour work week!” Vs “nobody needs to work”
“We want the zero hour work week!” implies a desire to reduce the standard work week to zero hours. It suggests people still want to work and contribute value through their work, just with fewer required work hours.
“Nobody needs to work” is a broader statement that questions whether work itself is necessary. It could be interpreted as meaning that people should not be obligated or required to work at all, and that their basic needs should still be met without contributing labor.
Overall, the first sentence focuses more on reducing work hours while still valuing work itself. The second calls into question whether work is inherently needed for people to live and thrive. Both discuss reducing the role of work, but they have slightly different philosophical implications.
You asked what was said, not what what was implied.
If everyone is entitled to a 0 hour work week, that means they are entitled to do 0 hours of work.
Yes. There are zero places in the original post where it says “nobody needs to work” It says “We want the zero hour work week!”.