5 ms·
What makes you think this should rebalance on its own? Historically - with the exception of the last ca. 80 years - these imbalances have been the norm. The ide
by jcfrei 3y ago
What makes you think this should rebalance on its own? Historically - with the exception of the last ca. 80 years - these imbalances have been the norm. The idea that a person can climb the social ladder through labor is a very new one and I doubt it's going to stay around. Historically wealth and its returns have been inherited and wide-spread rebalancing only occurred during crises, wars or the occasional technological revolution.
- benterix 3y ago> wide-spread rebalancing only occurred during crises, wars or the occasional technological revolution. Not only technological.
- red-iron-pine 3y agonot to put too fine a point on it but... > Not only technological. they mean violent. something that the bourgeoisie HN types need to keep in mind.
- jcfrei 3y agoViolent revolutions are very rare and nowadays only happen if a significant part of the military takes part. Historically there was a short window of time when revolutions were likely to succeed; after the invention of the printing press and when reading became somewhat common (which allowed for the organization of a revolution) and basically up until the invention of tanks. After that any financially stable regime that maintains leadership of the army can in 99% of the cases suppress any revolutionary attempts. The gap in firepower between an armed militia (with rifles) and a modern military with drones, jets, MLRS, tanks, artillery etc. is simply too large.
- lp0_on_fire 3y ago> Violent revolutions are very rare and nowadays only happen if a significant part of the military takes part. True, but just how many of the 1% and above are members of the military? "I ain't no Senator's son.", after all.
- libraryatnight 3y ago[flagged]
- dghughes 3y agoHow is wealth quantified? $19.95, $1K, $10K, $100K, $1M, $10M, $100M, $1B??? To a homeless person I'm pretty sure anyone not homeless appears to have wealth.
- ryandrake 3y agoSurely, the democratic process could provide some arbitrary threshold. It does so for other things. If we can come up with a minimum wage, we can probably come up with a maximum wage (or maximum wealth) if there was the political will.
- no_wizard 3y agoI’ve heard of a ratio which is 1:25. You base executive compensation to be at max 25x the lowest paid employee in an organization
- gadflyinyoureye 3y agoI think that answer here would be communism. You don’t own anything aside from small trinkets we call personal property. Redistribution in the form of everyone living in the same Soviet era style apartment s would work. No one gets a Victorian house. No gets a log home. Everyone has the same gray suit and live in the same gray buildings throughout the land.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- libraryatnight 3y ago[flagged]
- colpabar 3y agoI guess I just do not understand how moderation works here because I have seen comments not directly calling for violence get nuked within seconds of being posted, and this one and the one below which are explicitly advocating for murder are still here. People are even engaging with it!
- lumost 3y agoMy latter point was on the long-term stability of the status quo. In my view, the end-state of squeezing the middle class in a modern society may be a fertility crises as individuals choose not to have children. With modern birth control, this is the simplest means of reducing your costs in a modern society. If the birth rate falls to .5-1.0, then the status quo will most likely end in economic crises as the future population can no longer support the liabilities of the prior population. While it's possible to print money and perform other games to hide this reality, I don't think it's possible to maintain the farse against the backdrop of a 3-4x population decline.