People will lose their jobs en masse regardless of unions. The concentration of wealth and capture of surplus that we will see in the coming decades will probably make feudalism look like child's play
If you are unhappy with the terms or products of a company, you are free to shop or work elsewhere. That is the difference. "Capture of surplus" is hate speech - without those companies, there would be no surplus to begin with, that anybody could capture.
If you believe those companies will capture so much surplus, you could also buy some of their stock and participate.
> If you are unhappy with the terms or products of a company, you are free to shop or work elsewhere.
If you don't work you starve, or at the very least lose your house, car, maybe even your kids. There is no "freedom" of choice, and this is painfully obvious to anybody who is not stuck neck-deep in dogmatic ideology.
> If you believe those companies will capture so much surplus, you could also buy some of their stock and participate.
Sure, let me just get a small loan of 300 mil a month to build my competitor to Uber.
If you're not independently wealthy you probably cannot even get 100k of credit to open a restaurant or a similar small business. Again, that access to capital (nevermind to education, connections, etc) is profoundly unequal, and thus that "just start your own business" is am absurd statement, is also obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by ideology.
This argument is made often and is patently in bad faith. You understand and I hope your readers understand there is a power disparity and a prevalent culture that has a certain effect on your ability to "be free" (of what? To go elsewhere and have the same shit done to you? To have your family go hungry because some HR shithead blackballed you?).
On a personal level I would ask you to stop actively trying to make the world worse by parroting capitalist propaganda built specifically to disempower workers.
Nothing against educating girls, but this is probably the wrong conclusion. Economic situation determines whether girls can get an education or not, so educated girls correlate with a good economic situation. Not the other way round (educated girls causing a good economic situation).
Personally, I think this focus on girls only is sexist and I take care to never donate to charities that only want to help girls.
I think in areas with more traditional cultures, educating girls DOES improve the situation over a longer time horizon.
Those girls will become mothers, and their education will translate to providing better opportunities and a more sophisticated outlook for their children.
I agree it seems sexist to only help girls, but helping anyone is good.
