I'm trying to enlighten myself and help others along the way. I think that's what forums are for. To that end, when I see such egregious misinterpretations, I'm compelled to point them out.
Thought the same thing then realized it basically perpetuates the problem and increases reliance upon them so they when the time comes the rug pull is even more effective
Stanford ran one of San Francisco's more notorious brothels.[1] San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen wrote "the United Nations was founded at Sally Stanford's whorehouse" because of the number of delegates to the organization's 1945 San Francisco founding conference who were Stanford's customers
He's not wrong, things would grind to a halt if people didn't have to work to eat. If most people didn't need to work to survive society would grind to a halt and everyone would starve.
If most people didn't need to work to survive society would grind to a halt and everyone would starve.
Who told you that?
With current level of technologies average man don't need to work more than 2-3 days a week to get everything necessary for a more than a decent level of living. If they stop "work for food" and will work only for themselves and their families, only parasites who do not (and can not) create any goods would starve, not everyone.
I see nothing bad if all that useless lawyers, state officials, stock traders, marketers, elites and other crap would starve and beg ones who could create things for food.
There happening completely opposite process, NWO build a system when people who create goods have to beg for food those bastards who create absolutely nothing. And NWO would not stop by itself if it will not achieve that impossible goal. So, it is stupid idea that "people should work hard to survive" will eventually end with everyone starving, unless NWO will be completely destroyed along with every and each of their agendas and narratives.
only parasites who do not (and can not) create any goods would starve, not everyone.
And how would you expect that to work in industries where even one plant is an endeavor costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to build and equip? Do the workers just pool their money together to buy a factory and then fight over who actually gets to run things? Would it be state owned? Would the worker just get paid a share of what he produces leading to a worse outcome for both the worker and company?
I see nothing bad if all that useless lawyers, state officials, stock traders, marketers, elites and other crap would starve and beg ones who could create things for food.
Those would all still exist though.
There happening completely opposite process, NWO build a system when people who create goods have to beg for food those bastards who create absolutely nothing. And NWO would not stop by itself if it will not achieve that impossible goal
What is impossible about that goal? It's how things have always worked since the dawn of recorded history.
So, it is stupid idea that "people should work hard to survive" will eventually end with everyone starving
A bit of a stretch that people being worked to their fullest means everyone starves(and then nobody to work the factories and farms?). Population reduction is one thing, but having nobody to serve you is completely nonsensical.
And how would you expect that to work in industries where even one plant is an endeavor costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to build and equip?
I expect that such giant enterprises will eventually become obsolete, because of technological development.
Do the workers just pool their money together to buy a factory and then fight over who actually gets to run things?
It does not matter who owns a factory. Important thing how many effort of people who run and//or own that factory is dumped into different state and "business" stuff that is not essential for real production.
Those would all still exist though.
But they should not be so expensive.
What is impossible about that goal?
There always will be people who will find a way to get everything they need without begging from authorities.
A bit of a stretch that people being worked to their fullest means everyone starves(and then nobody to work the factories and farms?)
Could you imagine that people could work on farm for fun? Just because they like that way of living. And they don't need to work hard to cover their needs and have some excess for trade. But when a state force them to work hard for food by all that stupid legislations, taxes, licenses and other shit, they have no reason to continue. It is no more fun in that thing, when you have to spent days talking with unpleasant and useless people just to buy some nitrate fertilizer.
The same is with factory and any other business.
So, the attempts of state to force people work for food killing any motivation. Work without motivation is a direct way to fall of productivity, quality and all that things not very important for state. Eventually there will be no decent food or goods to work for. And that's the end.
I expect that such giant enterprises will eventually become obsolete, because of technological development.
Ahh, so appeal to generic technological development. You just imagine a world where one machine can do everything without need for retooling and with no question of how the raw materials will be obtained if not with costly machinery.
It does not matter who owns a factory. Important thing how many effort of people who run and own that factory is dumped into different state stuff that is not necessary for real production.
I'm not even sure what you're saying.
There always will be people who will find a way to get everything they need without begging from authorities.
The only way to do so is through theft, tax evasion and illegal homesteading, or under the table bartering, all of which are already illegal. You act like because crime exists everyone will be starved in a misguided effort to completely wipe it out rather than just settling for more and more measures of increasing effectiveness that work almost entirely? So what if someone manages to live independently for a week before arrest and being forced to work in prison or executed?
Could you imagine that people could work on farm for fun? Just because they like that way of living.
Farms as we know them would be too expensive for the average man to own and operate, instead we'd just be stuck using hand tools sleeping in a communal shed and paying most of our yields the head of town to feed the militia.
and they don't need to work hard to cover their needs and have some excess for trade.
They'd be working their asses off for as long as the sun is up and then be unable to get a reasonable price for their harvest because local distribution is the only option and everyone else around you is growing the same crops.
But when a state force them to work hard for food by all that stupid legislations, taxes, licenses and other shit, they have no reason to continue. It is no more fun in that thing, when you have to spent days talking with unpleasant and useless people just to buy some nitrate fertilizer.
Funny, in a modern farm there's a specialized position for all that sort of stuff, in your world you'd have more administrative tasks to deal with than you would as an employee on a farm now if you're really making the "for enjoyment" argument.
So, the attempts of state to force people work for food killing any motivation
That creates the motivation, without a need to work to survive most people would just be chasing pleasure all their lives.
Work without motivation is a direct way to fall of productivity, quality and all that things not very important for state. Eventually there will be no decent food or goods to work for. And that's the end.
Quality and worker motivation are almost completely detached, as long as the low rung employees are actually doing their job as written then quality is entirely dependent on those who write up and sign off on the specifications. Productivity is effected, but that's why you need to have a surplus of potential workers so you can replace those who aren't performing adequately and thus providing a motivation for your employees to not slack off for even a moment.
You just imagine a world where one machine can do everything without need for retooling and with no question of how the raw materials will be obtained if not with costly machinery.
It is only question of energy. With enough energy and technology advanced enough, you could just create anything from any matter you have around. That is the course of whole history of means of production development. Technology makes means of production smaller, more effective and cheaper. Of course, we are far from "replicators", yet, but you already could have nearly any plastic part made at home on $100 device.
The only way to do so is through theft, tax evasion and illegal homesteading, or under the table bartering, all of which are already illegal.
Fuck their laws. Right to create anything you want is natural. As a right to exchange goods with others. If some law restrict it, this law is void.
They'd be working their asses off for as long as the sun is up and then be unable to get a reasonable price for their harvest because local distribution is the only option and everyone else around you is growing the same crops.
That does not work like that. It is not XIV century now. You don't need work your ass off all daytime.
Funny, in a modern farm there's a specialized position for all that sort of stuff
Positions. Highly expensive ones. And that people create absolutely nothing. So, those who do real things have to work much more to make some additional money to pay them.
That creates the motivation, without a need to work to survive most people would just be chasing pleasure all their lives.
Most, but not all. Many people will spend free time for doing something useful.
quality is entirely dependent on those who write up and sign off on the specifications.
That is complete bullshit. Quality have nothing to do with specs at all. There is no any quality in things that perfectly fit to specs at sale time but most will inevitably break later. Quality depends on manufacturing culture, not on specs. Manufacturing culture will not allow you put a plastic part instead of metal one on car engine, or use some "flavoring identical to natural" instead of real berries. Both products will perfectly fit specs, but one is a garbage and other is a decent thing.
Of course, we are far from "replicators", yet, but you already could have nearly any plastic part made at home on $100 device.
after waiting 5 hours for a part that wouldn't take five minutes to make machine in an actual factory and likely using more expensive materials, 3d printing isn't viable for anything except small home projects you cant get parts for any other way or that have insane mark up.
Technology makes means of production smaller, more effective and cheaper.
I'd strongly disagree with technology making the means of production smaller and cheaper to obtain, typically the older tech is the cheapest and size can only shrink down so much.
That does not work like that. It is not XIV century now. You don't need work your ass off all daytime.
You would because the machinery used to make farming so efficient is unaffordable for the average man.
Manufacturing culture will not allow you put a plastic part instead of metal one on car engine, or use some "flavoring identical to natural" instead of real berries. Both products will perfectly fit specs, but one is a garbage and other is a decent thing.
Again, no. if the specifications call for artificial flavoring or plastic instead of metal then that's what will be used and it's all that will even be available unless whoever's in charge of ordering fails at his job.
Yes, it is much less than a week waiting of dealer delivery of the part with the price of printer with year supply of plastic.
that wouldn't take five minutes to make machine in an actual factory
Factories that make plastic parts made them in baches. And if you need a part that's not in stock and not in current batch, you could wait mohths, when batch with your part will be started.
and likely using more expensive materials,
Making plastic parts is not about using expensive materials. It is about making cheaper parts.
And if you are not satisfied with durability or strength of printed part, you always could turn it into aluminium one. All you need - aluminium junk, fire, crucible, sand and bentonite kitty litter.
3d printing isn't viable for anything except small home projects you cant get parts for any other way or that have insane mark up.
It is perfectly viable for anything you can't just go and buy in closest shop.
But that's not about tips and tricks of making parts on 3D printer. It is about a vector of technology. More and more things people could make by themselves with the help of tech. From plastic parts to baking bread. Including devices for making other things. With minimum possible efforts. Eventually, you will be able to make any object you need.
You would because the machinery used to make farming so efficient is unaffordable for the average man.
Why do you think so? Of course, if you are talking about new John Deer, it is unaffordable, and mostly not because of price, but because of ownership cost. But there is a huge market of used tractors, thanks to technology developments. Technology not only make new things, it also creates a market of previously unaffordable things.
Again, no. if the specifications call for artificial flavoring or plastic instead of metal then that's what will be used
And that is the problem. That is why we have a lot of shitty short-living things around now.
And how would you expect that to work in industries where even one plant is an endeavor costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to build and equip?
Stop having mega-factories? Most of the crap that we make isn't remotely needed, and much of the stuff we need could be done locally at small scale. Yeah, it would cost more but that just raises the incentive to build things to last.
So every man owns his own factory(ignoring where the factories came from and how they were distributed) that he operates himself and for something with hundreds or even thousands of different pieces you'd have parts coming from hundreds of different factories? Or would you simply have one factory which has to retool between each step forcing batches to be much larger than they would otherwise be?
Most of the crap that we make isn't remotely needed
I disagree, it's just most of the stuff we see outside of a work context is unneeded, but there's a lot that goes into keeping an industrial society running that you don't normally see or think about.
Yeah, it would cost more but that just raises the incentive to build things to last.
While it would incentivize people buying quality it would also force people into buying the cheapest shit available which will often be made out of materials which are plainly unsuitable for the task.
we dont NEED to work as much at ALL for us to survive now. we have so much wonderous technology to the point we only have to all work MAYBE 2 or 3 hours a day. but they want to keep us as slaves and only increase the amount of hours we all work so they get MORE money!
if people only worked 2 or 3 hours a day for 3 or 4 days a week? there would be MUCH more time to sit back and think and we would start something. they are afraid of that. they need to keep people going so they dont start something
we dont NEED to work as much at ALL for us to survive now. we have so much wonderous technology to the point we only have to all work MAYBE 2 or 3 hours a day.
Productivity would decrease massively, prices would skyrocket due to shortages and there would be chaos with only three hours a day of work.
if people only worked 2 or 3 hours a day for 3 or 4 days a week? there would be MUCH more time to sit back and think and we would start something. they are afraid of that. they need to keep people going so they dont start something
No, we'd just be sedated with bread and circuses, nothing would get done.
Past 3rd or 4th grade homeschooling is basically effortless since the kids can manage all of it themselves, growing food requires land, and complaining won't get anything done when their pay far outweighs any minor annoyance that you might potentially cause.
There would still be scarcity, but everyone would be living a life of subsistance since there wouldn't be anything else getting made and eventually that too would likely crumble and lead to mass starvation.
Subsistance is newspeak for self-sufficiency and food security. Your original idea as stated is actually a contradiction, since properity precludes poverty. What you really mean to say is that you feel like you need others to be forced to work to provide for you and your masters.
what food security is there in a single bad harvest leading to you having to starve your children to death? Okay so property precludes poverty but what about when you need to sell your property which is your only way of feeding yourself?
What food security is there in global just-time delivery system reliant on nonrenewable fertilizers and genetic engineering controlled with futures markets and money conjured out of nothing? Another contradiction: people need to focus on short term to solve long term problems? What you are saying is you think most people are too dumb to solve long term problems like emergency food storage and need the help of (((fancy financial techniques and big government policy))). On the contrary, the biggest disasters were caused by these parasites, but you don't hear much about that because they are the same ones controlling the media and infesting schools. The fear of scarcity is a risky and cruel control mechanism needed by only the most evil and egregious tyrants.
It's not just a matter of emergency food storage, but rather the difficulty of running a business when you can't rely on constant labor both of your employees and of the employees of the industries you're reliant on.
Still thinking in globohomo slave world, where the average person has to be dumbed down below human level and kept there. Sane, healthy and well developed human beings work out of a sense of responsibility and shared vision. Subhuman goyim/nigger/npc/zombies who only work out of fear are not only unnecessary for life, they are an existential threat to the free and good.
I worked for about 5 years, while raising kids and paying a sitter, and now I can afford to not work for 5 years.
I still work, not because I'll starve otherwise (I'd just steal if that were the case), but because I find meaning in doing something useful, I'm gaining new skills, and I can use my money to go towards improving my situation.
Baby sitters seem like a massive scam for the vast majority of people, you end up paying someone else to raise your kid so you can work for a company that actively strives to wipe out your people so you just barely get enough money to have someone else raise your kid.
Also in the system you're describing you wouldn't be able to have a high enough paying job for someone else to watch your kids and on top of that to be able to spend five years not working.
I still work, not because I'll starve otherwise (I'd just steal if that were the case), but because I find meaning in doing something useful, I'm gaining new skills, and I can use my money to go towards improving my situation
The way I see it money won't change your situation unless you have vast amounts as well as the connections and knowledge from parents to make use of it, at the end of the day you'll still be working a job you hate just to subsist and I've yet to gain a new skill from working beyond those picked up early on and of those skills none are of use outside of my field.
Original article is still up lol
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger
Archive for when they purge it: https://archive.ph/KbbGD
They have purged it.
Now it 404 errors.
I feel like we should get some sort of prize
What prize? You have entirely mischaracterized the piece.
How so? I literally posted a screenshot... The main thesis was that hunger motivated economic productivity.
Your title says that the United Nations wants world hunger because this article admits it.
Yes, this appears to be the case. What is your inference?
I'm trying to enlighten myself and help others along the way. I think that's what forums are for. To that end, when I see such egregious misinterpretations, I'm compelled to point them out.
Yep, we're the people that clean the toilets and operate the rides for the elite. 'Human Resources'
The problem with slavery is that you end up with ride operators (and maintainers) who couldn't give a rat's ass whether you live or die.
We are tyler duran
And liver transplants for the elite who over imbibe compulsorily provided by the children of the starving workers
This article calls out the ultra rich who perpetuate poverty for their own enrichment.
Thought the same thing then realized it basically perpetuates the problem and increases reliance upon them so they when the time comes the rug pull is even more effective
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Stanford
Stanford ran one of San Francisco's more notorious brothels.[1] San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen wrote "the United Nations was founded at Sally Stanford's whorehouse" because of the number of delegates to the organization's 1945 San Francisco founding conference who were Stanford's customers
He's not wrong, things would grind to a halt if people didn't have to work to eat. If most people didn't need to work to survive society would grind to a halt and everyone would starve.
Who told you that?
With current level of technologies average man don't need to work more than 2-3 days a week to get everything necessary for a more than a decent level of living. If they stop "work for food" and will work only for themselves and their families, only parasites who do not (and can not) create any goods would starve, not everyone.
I see nothing bad if all that useless lawyers, state officials, stock traders, marketers, elites and other crap would starve and beg ones who could create things for food.
There happening completely opposite process, NWO build a system when people who create goods have to beg for food those bastards who create absolutely nothing. And NWO would not stop by itself if it will not achieve that impossible goal. So, it is stupid idea that "people should work hard to survive" will eventually end with everyone starving, unless NWO will be completely destroyed along with every and each of their agendas and narratives.
And how would you expect that to work in industries where even one plant is an endeavor costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to build and equip? Do the workers just pool their money together to buy a factory and then fight over who actually gets to run things? Would it be state owned? Would the worker just get paid a share of what he produces leading to a worse outcome for both the worker and company?
Those would all still exist though.
What is impossible about that goal? It's how things have always worked since the dawn of recorded history.
A bit of a stretch that people being worked to their fullest means everyone starves(and then nobody to work the factories and farms?). Population reduction is one thing, but having nobody to serve you is completely nonsensical.
I expect that such giant enterprises will eventually become obsolete, because of technological development.
It does not matter who owns a factory. Important thing how many effort of people who run and//or own that factory is dumped into different state and "business" stuff that is not essential for real production.
But they should not be so expensive.
There always will be people who will find a way to get everything they need without begging from authorities.
Could you imagine that people could work on farm for fun? Just because they like that way of living. And they don't need to work hard to cover their needs and have some excess for trade. But when a state force them to work hard for food by all that stupid legislations, taxes, licenses and other shit, they have no reason to continue. It is no more fun in that thing, when you have to spent days talking with unpleasant and useless people just to buy some nitrate fertilizer.
The same is with factory and any other business.
So, the attempts of state to force people work for food killing any motivation. Work without motivation is a direct way to fall of productivity, quality and all that things not very important for state. Eventually there will be no decent food or goods to work for. And that's the end.
Ahh, so appeal to generic technological development. You just imagine a world where one machine can do everything without need for retooling and with no question of how the raw materials will be obtained if not with costly machinery.
I'm not even sure what you're saying.
The only way to do so is through theft, tax evasion and illegal homesteading, or under the table bartering, all of which are already illegal. You act like because crime exists everyone will be starved in a misguided effort to completely wipe it out rather than just settling for more and more measures of increasing effectiveness that work almost entirely? So what if someone manages to live independently for a week before arrest and being forced to work in prison or executed?
Farms as we know them would be too expensive for the average man to own and operate, instead we'd just be stuck using hand tools sleeping in a communal shed and paying most of our yields the head of town to feed the militia.
They'd be working their asses off for as long as the sun is up and then be unable to get a reasonable price for their harvest because local distribution is the only option and everyone else around you is growing the same crops.
Funny, in a modern farm there's a specialized position for all that sort of stuff, in your world you'd have more administrative tasks to deal with than you would as an employee on a farm now if you're really making the "for enjoyment" argument.
That creates the motivation, without a need to work to survive most people would just be chasing pleasure all their lives.
Quality and worker motivation are almost completely detached, as long as the low rung employees are actually doing their job as written then quality is entirely dependent on those who write up and sign off on the specifications. Productivity is effected, but that's why you need to have a surplus of potential workers so you can replace those who aren't performing adequately and thus providing a motivation for your employees to not slack off for even a moment.
It is only question of energy. With enough energy and technology advanced enough, you could just create anything from any matter you have around. That is the course of whole history of means of production development. Technology makes means of production smaller, more effective and cheaper. Of course, we are far from "replicators", yet, but you already could have nearly any plastic part made at home on $100 device.
Fuck their laws. Right to create anything you want is natural. As a right to exchange goods with others. If some law restrict it, this law is void.
That does not work like that. It is not XIV century now. You don't need work your ass off all daytime.
Positions. Highly expensive ones. And that people create absolutely nothing. So, those who do real things have to work much more to make some additional money to pay them.
Most, but not all. Many people will spend free time for doing something useful.
That is complete bullshit. Quality have nothing to do with specs at all. There is no any quality in things that perfectly fit to specs at sale time but most will inevitably break later. Quality depends on manufacturing culture, not on specs. Manufacturing culture will not allow you put a plastic part instead of metal one on car engine, or use some "flavoring identical to natural" instead of real berries. Both products will perfectly fit specs, but one is a garbage and other is a decent thing.
after waiting 5 hours for a part that wouldn't take five minutes to make machine in an actual factory and likely using more expensive materials, 3d printing isn't viable for anything except small home projects you cant get parts for any other way or that have insane mark up.
I'd strongly disagree with technology making the means of production smaller and cheaper to obtain, typically the older tech is the cheapest and size can only shrink down so much.
You would because the machinery used to make farming so efficient is unaffordable for the average man.
Again, no. if the specifications call for artificial flavoring or plastic instead of metal then that's what will be used and it's all that will even be available unless whoever's in charge of ordering fails at his job.
Yes, it is much less than a week waiting of dealer delivery of the part with the price of printer with year supply of plastic.
Factories that make plastic parts made them in baches. And if you need a part that's not in stock and not in current batch, you could wait mohths, when batch with your part will be started.
Making plastic parts is not about using expensive materials. It is about making cheaper parts.
And if you are not satisfied with durability or strength of printed part, you always could turn it into aluminium one. All you need - aluminium junk, fire, crucible, sand and bentonite kitty litter.
It is perfectly viable for anything you can't just go and buy in closest shop.
But that's not about tips and tricks of making parts on 3D printer. It is about a vector of technology. More and more things people could make by themselves with the help of tech. From plastic parts to baking bread. Including devices for making other things. With minimum possible efforts. Eventually, you will be able to make any object you need.
Why do you think so? Of course, if you are talking about new John Deer, it is unaffordable, and mostly not because of price, but because of ownership cost. But there is a huge market of used tractors, thanks to technology developments. Technology not only make new things, it also creates a market of previously unaffordable things.
And that is the problem. That is why we have a lot of shitty short-living things around now.
Stop having mega-factories? Most of the crap that we make isn't remotely needed, and much of the stuff we need could be done locally at small scale. Yeah, it would cost more but that just raises the incentive to build things to last.
So every man owns his own factory(ignoring where the factories came from and how they were distributed) that he operates himself and for something with hundreds or even thousands of different pieces you'd have parts coming from hundreds of different factories? Or would you simply have one factory which has to retool between each step forcing batches to be much larger than they would otherwise be?
I disagree, it's just most of the stuff we see outside of a work context is unneeded, but there's a lot that goes into keeping an industrial society running that you don't normally see or think about.
While it would incentivize people buying quality it would also force people into buying the cheapest shit available which will often be made out of materials which are plainly unsuitable for the task.
we dont NEED to work as much at ALL for us to survive now. we have so much wonderous technology to the point we only have to all work MAYBE 2 or 3 hours a day. but they want to keep us as slaves and only increase the amount of hours we all work so they get MORE money!
if people only worked 2 or 3 hours a day for 3 or 4 days a week? there would be MUCH more time to sit back and think and we would start something. they are afraid of that. they need to keep people going so they dont start something
Productivity would decrease massively, prices would skyrocket due to shortages and there would be chaos with only three hours a day of work.
No, we'd just be sedated with bread and circuses, nothing would get done.
Projection?
I've been using my time at home to school my kids, start growing food, and raise hell with my local politicians.
What are you doing?
Past 3rd or 4th grade homeschooling is basically effortless since the kids can manage all of it themselves, growing food requires land, and complaining won't get anything done when their pay far outweighs any minor annoyance that you might potentially cause.
i think we would build a great society
I agree, their satanic abomination of a society will grind to a halt if fear of scarcity is eliminated.
There would still be scarcity, but everyone would be living a life of subsistance since there wouldn't be anything else getting made and eventually that too would likely crumble and lead to mass starvation.
Subsistance is newspeak for self-sufficiency and food security. Your original idea as stated is actually a contradiction, since properity precludes poverty. What you really mean to say is that you feel like you need others to be forced to work to provide for you and your masters.
what food security is there in a single bad harvest leading to you having to starve your children to death? Okay so property precludes poverty but what about when you need to sell your property which is your only way of feeding yourself?
What food security is there in global just-time delivery system reliant on nonrenewable fertilizers and genetic engineering controlled with futures markets and money conjured out of nothing? Another contradiction: people need to focus on short term to solve long term problems? What you are saying is you think most people are too dumb to solve long term problems like emergency food storage and need the help of (((fancy financial techniques and big government policy))). On the contrary, the biggest disasters were caused by these parasites, but you don't hear much about that because they are the same ones controlling the media and infesting schools. The fear of scarcity is a risky and cruel control mechanism needed by only the most evil and egregious tyrants.
It's not just a matter of emergency food storage, but rather the difficulty of running a business when you can't rely on constant labor both of your employees and of the employees of the industries you're reliant on.
Still thinking in globohomo slave world, where the average person has to be dumbed down below human level and kept there. Sane, healthy and well developed human beings work out of a sense of responsibility and shared vision. Subhuman goyim/nigger/npc/zombies who only work out of fear are not only unnecessary for life, they are an existential threat to the free and good.
I worked for about 5 years, while raising kids and paying a sitter, and now I can afford to not work for 5 years.
I still work, not because I'll starve otherwise (I'd just steal if that were the case), but because I find meaning in doing something useful, I'm gaining new skills, and I can use my money to go towards improving my situation.
Baby sitters seem like a massive scam for the vast majority of people, you end up paying someone else to raise your kid so you can work for a company that actively strives to wipe out your people so you just barely get enough money to have someone else raise your kid.
Also in the system you're describing you wouldn't be able to have a high enough paying job for someone else to watch your kids and on top of that to be able to spend five years not working.
The way I see it money won't change your situation unless you have vast amounts as well as the connections and knowledge from parents to make use of it, at the end of the day you'll still be working a job you hate just to subsist and I've yet to gain a new skill from working beyond those picked up early on and of those skills none are of use outside of my field.
Not true for everybody. For me and others in my family, work is an identity.