The Androids and Assets team makes a terrible dad joke, in being late to publish its episode on In Time (2011). Listen as we debate if this movie is a scathing critique of capitalism or some lame feel good nonsense.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Spotify | iHeartRadio | TuneIn | Deezer | RSS
I think a good point about Time would be that it actually serves as a pretty good critique of the welfare state as a bandaid for the structural inequalities of capitalism:
You are guaranteed a certain amount of support to live a life, more even than we give to children (you live till 25 without having to worry I guess) but once you step outside those bounds, and *everyone has to eventually,* if you aren’t part of the wealthy elite who control the economy you are inevitably fucked and have to paying in to this rigged economy to survive.
The “free” years exist to ensure the continuity of a reserve army of able bodied labourers who must compete against each other for wages, making it easier for the wealthy to manipulate the supposed value of those wages. The granted 25 years aren’t a gift, they’re an investment in maintaining a stable but subservient workforce.
I guess that’s a possibility. It would seem to fit with the way the elites in New Greenwich treat the rest of the population.
It’s hard to say how people are treated when they are young, though. Do they get an education? Post-secondary? Without more background on the society, I think it’s hard to say. It felt like most people were not that well educated which helps with keeping them docile but doesn’t make for a very good labour force.
It is a good point, though, about labour force participation. A person can’t really choose to disengage with society. It’s almost impossible to be an activist; protesting wouldn’t come with a great paycheque.
I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks.