this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
705 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

59217 readers
3143 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress. That’s according to the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A fever is a symptom and similarly it is one that must be treated directly to save the life of the patient.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the much stronger analogy. Billionaires are a problem in and of themselves, but only getting rid of billionaires will just lay the groundwork for new billionaires

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It really depends on how you “get rid” of billionaires.

If you do it in a way that ties a wealth limit to minimum wages, then we won’t have billionaires until they raise the income of the lower class to a point where the economic climate permits billionaires. Tying it to a fixed 1,000,000,000 monies would be a horribly flawed design because it would not be inflation proof and would vary across currencies. After all, a billionaire in dollar$ isn’t the same as a billionaire in ¥en.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Within a socdem or capitalist society, neither of those solutions would be effective at eliminating billionaires or the inequality that comes with their existence. The only solution that could guarantee an elimination of billionaires is to seize their property and wealth (they can only have 1 house) and establish a socialist society.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure how you got multiple solutions out of my comment. I was suggesting instituting a wealth tax (rather than an income tax), which is literally seizing their property and wealth, so I think we are in agreement here that such a solution would be the only way it works. However, I don’t think it should be a fixed monetary limit, rather one that changes based on economic indicators.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We honestly should just replace every single fixed dollar amount in every law with an algebraic formula. It's ridiculous that we design laws to become dated and require replacement.

Minimum wage should be tied to worker productivity, and wealth tax should be tied to the median personal income, including that of non-working adults. Welfare programs should be tied to regional cost of living. Limits on rent should be tied to changes in regional median income.

We're already tracking most or all of that data anyway, might as well put it to maximum use.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Fines should scale with wealth. If a billionaire gets a parking ticket, the fine should be tens of thousands of dollars.

Fun side effect is this might encourage the cops to bother the wealthy instead, which might lead to police reform.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed, and it’s not a novel idea. At least a few smarter countries already create policies that periodically update according to a formula.