Wealth inequality is single-handedly one of the worst and most pressing issues on the planet. We are in desperate need of a wealth tax and a wealth cap. We have done this before, and it was demonstrably successful.
However, there is a critical detail that is consistently ignored: competition, the cornerstone of capitalism. If my company demands higher pay, another company will undercut us. I lose work. That is the reality of the market.
You are not the first person I have had this discussion with. The problem is an overfocus on an idealized, single facet of a far more complex system. It is easy to say “we should work less and get paid more,” but we live in reality. There are many types of work and compensation structures that do not scale to a four-day workweek.
Moreover, what is being proposed are massive, systemic, sweeping change, an attempt to fundamentally reshape the entire system “for the greater good.” History shows that “the greater good” is a dangerous concept and is rarely good for the majority.
The problem is an overfocus on an idealized, single facet of a far more complex system.
no, the problem are people trying to mud the issue with “it’s a complex one, so lets do nothing, not even talk about it”.
If my company demands higher pay, another company will undercut us.
and that is why we have laws and enforce them. (or it should be). because we have learned that unchecked and uncontrolled capitalism is, in fact, not working towards peace, liberty and justice for all, but towards putting everything into the hand of few billionaires and enslaving all other people.
yes, it is a complex topic that is not going to be solved with one minor rule. no one is saying it will be easy, but something has to be done.
History shows that “the greater good” is a dangerous concept and is rarely good for the majority.
nice billionaire talking points you have there. you are literally admitting you live in an oppressive economic regime and yet you try to defend it.
Yes. The pattern continues. You cherry-pick a few choice quotes from my response and then claim I’m some kind of pro-billionaire, despite the fact that my statement opened with a clear denunciation of billionaires.
Wealth inequality is single-handedly one of the worst and most pressing issues on the planet. We are in desperate need of a wealth tax and a wealth cap. We have done this before, and it was demonstrably successful.
Are you going to gloss over that, or is it simply more convenient to pretend I didn’t say it? Of course it is. That part directly contradicts the narrative you are trying to push. It also offers actual solutions, something you have failed to do, opting instead for ad hominem.
Let me be perfectly clear. I do not like billionaires. They should not exist. Their wealth needs to be forcibly reclaimed, leaving them with enough money to feel rich but without any functional power. Large corporations must be aggressively monitored and regulated.
Achieving this requires sweeping reforms: outlawing lobbying, instituting term limits for politicians, abolishing the Electoral College, implementing wage taxes and caps, and redistributing wealth to the bottom 80 percent.
So I’ll ask again: are you capable of contributing anything substantive to this discussion, or is performative outrage the extent of your engagement?
Wealth inequality is single-handedly one of the worst and most pressing issues on the planet. We are in desperate need of a wealth tax and a wealth cap. We have done this before, and it was demonstrably successful.
However, there is a critical detail that is consistently ignored: competition, the cornerstone of capitalism. If my company demands higher pay, another company will undercut us. I lose work. That is the reality of the market.
You are not the first person I have had this discussion with. The problem is an overfocus on an idealized, single facet of a far more complex system. It is easy to say “we should work less and get paid more,” but we live in reality. There are many types of work and compensation structures that do not scale to a four-day workweek.
Moreover, what is being proposed are massive, systemic, sweeping change, an attempt to fundamentally reshape the entire system “for the greater good.” History shows that “the greater good” is a dangerous concept and is rarely good for the majority.
no, the problem are people trying to mud the issue with “it’s a complex one, so lets do nothing, not even talk about it”.
and that is why we have laws and enforce them. (or it should be). because we have learned that unchecked and uncontrolled capitalism is, in fact, not working towards peace, liberty and justice for all, but towards putting everything into the hand of few billionaires and enslaving all other people.
yes, it is a complex topic that is not going to be solved with one minor rule. no one is saying it will be easy, but something has to be done.
nice billionaire talking points you have there. you are literally admitting you live in an oppressive economic regime and yet you try to defend it.
Yes. The pattern continues. You cherry-pick a few choice quotes from my response and then claim I’m some kind of pro-billionaire, despite the fact that my statement opened with a clear denunciation of billionaires.
Are you going to gloss over that, or is it simply more convenient to pretend I didn’t say it? Of course it is. That part directly contradicts the narrative you are trying to push. It also offers actual solutions, something you have failed to do, opting instead for ad hominem. Let me be perfectly clear. I do not like billionaires. They should not exist. Their wealth needs to be forcibly reclaimed, leaving them with enough money to feel rich but without any functional power. Large corporations must be aggressively monitored and regulated.
Achieving this requires sweeping reforms: outlawing lobbying, instituting term limits for politicians, abolishing the Electoral College, implementing wage taxes and caps, and redistributing wealth to the bottom 80 percent.
So I’ll ask again: are you capable of contributing anything substantive to this discussion, or is performative outrage the extent of your engagement?
Why are you demanding something you refuse to do yourself?