• 31 Posts
  • 326 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 29th, 2024

help-circle

  • I disagree that “their humiliating defeat on November 5 was due largely to their undeniable role in the Israeli war and genocide in Gaza.” I definitely think it played a role and Dems would have won more voters with concrete promises to halt Israel’s genocide and enforce US laws like the Leahy Law. People are justifiably upset with Israel crossing lines without Biden enforcing consequences, and the huge amounts of money going to fund genocide as opposed to being used domestically.

    Was it really THE major issue affecting votes though? IMO the more significant issues were things like a feeling of “more of the same” when people are struggling and focusing on trying to win “moderate” Republicans instead of motivating a base they thought was guaranteed. Still, it’s an article with valid points.










  • GrymEdm@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldWhat's a woman?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I remember an old 4chan joke from, I think, over a decade ago. It’s an old memory so I hope I don’t butcher it:

    A 4chan user found a genie. He was tired of getting no action, so he told the genie his 1st wish was the ability to turn on sight that would let him see everyone willing to sleep with him. “Your wish is granted”, replied the genie. “You can now close your eyes.”

    In the modern version I’d make it one of these misogynist assholes.




  • I think someone who takes say, a month off per year could still be a professional. Even 2 or 3, which has them working 9 months a year. If you disagree it’s not the end of the world. If you have a grounded argument to make in opposition, go for it and I’ll listen.

    Yes, they will operate in the same way (motivated by money) but they’ll do it at a drastically reduced level of societal harm. You come across as someone who isn’t greedy, and who understands the concept of “enough” which are admirable qualities I strive for myself - I live on disability payments and largely succeed in being thankful for it. However, making everyone happy with a middle class level of “enough” (i.e. no motivation to succeed beyond that) would require changing the nature of a lot of, perhaps most, human beings IMO. I think it would be a hard sell. Failing to convince at least most people to not strive past middle class living could lead to dissatisfaction, a collapse of the limits we’re proposing, and an eventual return to more harmful “norms”.


  • And surgeons/engineers aren’t making 40 million.

    That’s true. I’m just ballparking numbers and gave surgeons/engineers as an example of what I consider difficult, valuable jobs (as far as education etc.). I don’t think they are the top paid individuals in America by a long shot.

    40 million is about 20 lifetimes.

    I think a person living with the best society has to offer (big house, multiple cars, a yacht, luxury trips, personal chef, etc) + setting up their kids to succeed (e.g. buying them a house) could spend 40 million in their lifetime . Obviously those aren’t necessities, but IMO enjoying the best society can offer is the hallmark of being in the top tier of a system with economic classes. It’s definitely just a ballpark, but I think the purchasing power of 40 million in 2024 dollars is a sustainable cap on wealth that would be immensely better for wealth inequality while still allowing the very successful to enjoy the best in life.

    I don’t disagree a whole lot with what you said, but I think perhaps you are placing caps based on a middle-class life lived according to necessities + some luxuries like yearly vacations. Honest question, not putting words in your mouth I promise - are you expecting absolutely everyone to live a middle-class lifestyle (which I think makes caps on wealth a much harder sell)?


  • I’d like to see a soft cap implemented that’s tied to the nation’s average income (I think median would be the most fair, but it’s very possible I’m wrong). So for instance, the real median income in 2023 was about 80k according to census.gov. Let’s say we cap total wealth at 500x that median which = 40 million, after which taxes make it increasingly difficult to accumulate wealth, and have a yearly earnings soft cap of 100x = 8 million with similar restrictions.

    I think that would drastically reduce inequality while still preserving different economic classes, which I think are critical to motivating people into difficult, high-value jobs like engineers and surgeons. Stacking up 500 years worth of income would let the rich stay wealthy, and a soft cap would discourage hoarding and encourage spending which stimulates the economy and spreads money around. If the wealthy wanted to be able to earn more per year or raise the soft cap they’d have to arrange for the average income to go up. Moreover, I <think> that increases across many people at the bottom would move the median more than a few large increases at the top, which would encourage a higher “floor” for earnings.




  • For a second I thought “self-ruling” = driven by one of those sovereign citizen idiots. You know, the kind that think they don’t need license plates or to pay tickets because they are nations unto themselves. In which case it’s almost a ghost car in that it’s not guided by an intelligent life form. Then I saw the board.

    I have yet to encounter an self-driving car (not yet legal in Canada) but it probably feels wild driving near one.