this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
605 points (89.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

29723 readers
1150 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
605
Almost every problem in the world would be dealt with meaningfully if we outlawed billionaires. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by ininewcrow@lemmy.ca to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
174 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Everytime I look at small problems or big global problems, if you follow the money trail, it all leads to some billionaire who is either working towards increasing their wealth or protecting their wealth from decreasing.

Everything from politics, climate change, workers rights, democratic government, technology, land rights, human rights can all be rendered down to people fighting another group of people who defend the rights of a billionaire to keep their wealth or to expand their control.

If humanity got rid of or outlawed the notion of any one individual owning far too much money than they could ever possibly spend in a lifetime, we could free up so much wealth and energy to do other things like save ourselves from climate change.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Counterpoint - if people don’t need to take crappy jobs just to afford food and shelter, those jobs will have to provide better pay and conditions to get employees.

Most of those jobs will just no longer exist. Why would they? If i can afford what i need without having to deal with another dumb customer, i aint goin back into food service.

Also, if more people can afford to get further education, you’ll get more doctors and engineers and high skilled workers

Schools have limited resources too. One teacher can only reasonably teach so many students. Youre also contending with people not needing to get an education anymore. They can afford what they need already, if their goal before was to get a good paying job then that motivation is gone.

any society that can afford billionaires can afford to feed, clothe, shelter and provide basic medical care to all is members, it’s just choosing not to.

Zimbabwe had 100 trillion dollar bills, they sure couldnt afford all those things with it.

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t want to bite off more than I can chew, so I’ll just address the ‘jobs no longer existing’ thing—you seem wholly unaware that people enjoy being chefs, waiters, pizza dough tossers, all sorts of food service roles. Helping feed people is much more directly meaningful than most jobs in the developed world. Unlikely that this is the job sector that disappears, and not say the world of finance

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I did say "most" of them. Go to any fast food restaurant and ask the people there if they would still work there if they were given enough money to live comfortably without working there. Sure, there's people with passion for cooking, there would still be some restaurants. But it's fast food businesses that provide the most food to people currently. You get rid of every single fast food chain while also giving everyone the funds to be able to eat at the fancy restaurants still around from people passionate for cooking, and you're gonna see a hell of a bottleneck, I doubt they can handle a fraction of a percentage of the increased demand, meaning most people arent going to get to eat out.

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Ah, well whether or not fast food joints continue to exist is interesting to ponder, ideally you’re never in such a hurry that you want to go to a burger joint where you’re being slowly poisoned by 15 year olds reheating decidedly unhealthy meals, but given how many people try starting restaurants and just how intrinsically tied to existence the food industry is, I imagine in an ideal world plenty of people who are stuck in the fast food sector would leave but plenty more who’ve never explored their passions would be drawn to food in a different form

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Probably because most people want to thrive, not just survive. Some want to see the world. Get a job and contribute then.