Asklemmy

Yeah, it would be more correct to say "work for others to live" is absurd.

People always had to do some work to survive, but in a world were all the land is owned, if you are one of the majority which is born landless you generaly can't work for yourself (even to open your own business you need starting money) just enough to live by with (say, build your own house and do subsistence farming), so unless mommy and daddy have lots of dosh you're going to have to work for others within the constraints of the existing system (or become a criminal, in which case the system will punish you) and unlike when just working to provide to yourself, working in this system means competing with everybody else - and were, again, how much support mommy and daddy can give you makes a massive difference - to such a level that you have to run just to stand still.

Compared to plain old subsistence farming the whole way work is done in the current system is absurd, mainly because it has to produce way more than what is actually needed to provide for all, since a tiny slice of the population are massive money hoarders leeching out of the rest so tons of extra wealth has to be created just for them.

Whatever the optimal system is for "the greatest good for the greatest number" (which would be more than just everybody doing subsistence farming), mathematically it's clear it can't be one were some people have control over billions of times more resources than others.