6 ms·

They are not trolling. They are stating the simple, undeniable fact that there is more than enough to go around and if we had a more equitable distribution of r

They are not trolling. They are stating the simple, undeniable fact that there is more than enough to go around and if we had a more equitable distribution of resources, we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare.

AlexandrB 3mo ago
> we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare. Yes, like the 40%[1] of Stanford undergrads who have disabilities. The greatest long term impediment to what you're suggesting is folks who don't need the help taking advantage of the resource distribution. It both massively increases the costs and sours those who have to pay into the system on the whole thing leading to a backlash. If we could just solve this quirk of human nature, we'd be all set. [1] https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-accomodation-gen-z-phenomenon-find-success-in-competitive-job-market-stanford-university-skills-based-hiring/ https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-a...
- NuclearPM 3mo ago
  This is an issue, but billionaires are a greater issue.
  - mrkstu 3mo ago
    You could take away 100% of billionaires capital to redistribute and end up in the exact same place in 4 years.
    - jjav 3mo ago
      You would not end up in the same place because then you'd be in a world without billionaires, so you would not have people who can too easily just buy every politician and law they wish for their own perpetuation. That alone would be a massive win.
      - cucumber3732842 3mo ago
        It's not the ~50 billionares I'm worried about. They are human. You can appeal to Bill Gate's desire to leave a legacy he's proud of. You can appeal to Elon Musk's desire for technological progress. What worries me are the god knows how many "billionaire equivelent" entities and institutions that swing their dicks around in the same manner but do so with the sociopathic ruthlessness of corporations and governments. Peter Thiel may be evil but he'll almost certainly never knowingly instigate genocidal war in a foreign land for marginal benefit to his interests whereas that's exactly the kind of thing that nonhuman entities do because no person is singularly responsible.
        NuclearPM 3mo ago
        50???
        ethbr1 3mo ago
        > Peter Thiel may be evil but he'll almost certainly never knowingly instigate genocidal war in a foreign land for marginal benefit to his interests "Thiel's Palantir, Israel agree strategic partnership for battle tech" [2024] https://www.palantir.com/assets/xrfr7uokpv1b/3MuEeA8MLbLDAyxixTsiIe/9e4a11a7fb058554a8a1e3cd83e31c09/C134184_finaleprint.pdf https://www.palantir.com/assets/xrfr7uokpv1b/3MuEeA8MLbLDAyx... Ironically, that's the saved copy hosted by Palantir itself...
- watwut 3mo ago
  Yeah, disability accommodation like having single dorm room and being allowed to cook for themselves rather then using cantine. Maybe the question is why the cantine is obligatory anyway.
  - cake-rusk 3mo ago
    Is there a name for the phenomenon in which you look at something and know that there is something wrong with it but struggle to identify the problem? I got this feeling looking at the (non)word cantine.
    - opan 3mo ago
      Wiktionary lists cantine as an archaic form of canteen, also the french word that canteen came from is also spelled cantine.
- ethbr1 3mo ago
  You've just arrived back at capitalism: it's the least bad resource allocation optimization algorithm assuming everyone is an amoral asshole and willing to take every advantage they can. Superior systems exist, but they require relaxing the adversarial asshole constraint.
WarmWash 3mo ago
The problem is that when you get more for less, it kills the incentive to do more. This is a really glaring problem, and people go to really great lengths to either sweep it under the rug or hand wave it away.
- bluefirebrand 3mo ago
  > it kills the incentive to do more I'm an employee. I don't really benefit from doing more. When I do more, someone else makes money. In my experience that someone else is just as likely to lay me off for a cheaper worker as they are to give me a raise The incentives our system produces are already really skewed, and it would be nice to see them skew the other way for once
  - WarmWash 3mo ago
    It seems your complaint is a lack of recognition, and maybe redistribution would provide vengeance for this injustice. But that is different than "we ought to start giving raises to people who do less work, not more" which is what "skewing the other way" seems to imply.
    - bluefirebrand 3mo ago
      My observation is that if we leave our recognition up to people with power, they will choose to keep it for themselves or give it to their friends a majority of the time and that seems fucked up to continue to allow in a just society > "we ought to start giving raises to people who do less work, not more" This is completely beside the point, honestly We should not use the most productive members of society as a measuring stick as though they were the average. The average person does "way less work" than your very productive workaholic outliers, but that doesn't mean those people deserve way less. Somehow we've all wound up being measured against the most exceptional people, instead of being measured against the average. Keep in mind we're talking about a society where the median person only makes like $45k per year and exceptional people make many many times more than that I'm not sitting here saying that some random shmuck should have Elon Musks income or anything, we could probably do better than 45k a year though
chung8123 3mo ago
I don't think people realize how much evening out society will impact them. This is a very US (and probably EU) way of thinking. Everyone thinks they are middle class but when it comes down to it there are far more people in poverty and that evening things out will bring down the quality of life for the people advocating for evening out things.
- juvvel 3mo ago
  No. This is what capitalists want you to believe. The truth is that we are all subsiziding the capital gains of the wealthiest 2%. You could easily pay for generous social security programs by taxing property and capital more (as opposed to labor). But the ultra-wealthy point at the weakest and poorest and tell the average worker "look, they're coming for your house and your humble savings!". This is a very deliberate distraction.
  - WarmWash 3mo ago
    Have you looked at wealth distribution or do you just read social media headlines and comments all day? https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr... See that 50-90% and 90-99%? That's where all the money is. Moreover, the top 1% have tons of assets, but not much actual money. Any "evening out" will come mostly from the 50-99% class. If you want to see a crack in the echochamber, ask yourself why no publication has ever published this chart?
    - gilbetron 3mo ago
      That data is published quite often, no conspiracy here. The point is that the top 1% can be taxed more heavily, not that they own the majority of wealth.
      - welshwelsh 3mo ago
        I'm not sure taxing them more heavily will actually result in significantly more tax revenue in the long run. Think about it: to pay for this tax, the rich will need to sell their assets. Who is going to buy those assets? What impact would that have on the asset price?
techteach00 3mo ago
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about this mythical "excess". I can't afford housing. Millions like me can't. There is no excess. Unless it's being hoarded by the capital class.
- zem 3mo ago
  I mean, it is very obviously being hoarded by the capital class! there has been tons of writing on the subject, no one can credibly deny that that's what's happening right now.
  - closeparen 3mo ago
    The wealth of the capital class is, unsurprisingly, capital - the facilities, equipment, organizational structures, etc. used to make stuff. What does it mean for capital to be hoarded?
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      Power is the most important form of capital, followed by land. They hoard both of these.
  - nate_meurer 3mo ago
    The wealth of the "capital class", whatever that means, is dwarfed by the debt being run up by governments. My favorite example: if you confiscated all of the wealth from all of the billionaires in the USA, it would fund the federal government for around six months. If you add state and local governments, those funds would last just weeks. The rich don't have your money. Your government does, and they're flushing it down the toilet (and bombing Iran).
    - _DeadFred_ 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - 3mo ago
xedrac 3mo ago
People say this, but I'm not sure I understand how it could be true. For example, taxing billionaires is often cited as the solution to this problem. But if we took Elon Musk's $730 billion fortune and divided it evenly among the US population, people would receive a one-time payment of about $2000, and then that fortune would be gone, and any opportunities or advancements it was creating. So I'm genuinely curious where you see this incredible excess coming from.
- hackeraccount 3mo ago
  It also misunderstands that nature of Musk's fortune. He's not Scrooge McDuck and they pretend he is. Sell SpaceX at a fire sale. What's it worth? A lot less then it is now. Who would buy it? Poor people? Somehow I don't think so. Musk is a golden goose and there are people who think the best move is to cut him in half and get at all the gold inside.
nate_meurer 3mo ago
If that's true, it's odd that so many social welfare programs across the western world are consuming an ever-growing share of GDP, incurring massive debt, and grinding toward insolvency and collapse. Exactly how much more of our money and labor do you want to take from us in order to continue this madness?
- germandiago 3mo ago
  European here. I left Europe 14 years ago. I tried to come back. My decision was to run away bc it is impossible to build a reasonable life in a stable way where you do not get smashed mercilessly... It is just too much.
  - wuschel 3mo ago
    Where did you end up? Do you have a way to PM you?
    - germandiago 3mo ago
      southeast asia for now, but will move on at some point. Not sure how you can reach me without exposing too much. Just ask away here if you need to or let me know how I can reach you.
laughing_man 3mo ago
The only reason there's more than enough to go around is people work for the betterment of their own life. If you disconnect the link between work and material comfort that simple, undeniable fact will no longer be fact.
- shuwix 3mo ago
  Tou've said it perfectly. Last time when link between work and material comfort was disconnected was communism. It looked good on paper from 1920's perspective, but was a downward spiral. If we are to be functioning society, people need motivation to do their best ... and then, there's some spare wealth for the unfortunate.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3mo ago
  > > If you disconnect the link between work and material comfort that simple, undeniable fact will no longer be fact. The disconnect is already there, any 5 year old already understands that stealing a comic book at the comic book store is better than paying for it. And more and more people are resorting to it at every level of society
germandiago 3mo ago
Yes, remove the human incentive to produce, which is that the rest can consume in a way that is profitable enough for the producer and you will see the wxcess disappear in front of your eyes for killing the incentive to produce. Infinitely redistributing does not yield products for all, but scarcity for all.
- WarmWash 3mo ago
  This is why we pass laws making it illegal to not produce excess. Take that capitalist pig!
  - germandiago 3mo ago
    I see, so you are suggesting making black markets appear. Good, I see you studied economic history a lot... There is no way around this, believe me. Not sure why you call pigs to people producing actually. That is how things end up working. Not waiting for people to produce fornyou while you insult them amd try to set infinite restrictions until they do what you want... which by the way looks to me like modern slavery.
    - encrypted_bird 3mo ago
      Just as an aside, I suspect the last line had an implied "/s". If so, I think they really should have included it.
      - germandiago 3mo ago
        True, as I read back it seems it was sarcasm...very short sighted on my side...
hackeraccount 3mo ago
You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.

AlexandrB 3mo ago

> we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare. Yes, like the 40%[1] of Stanford undergrads who have disabilities. The greatest long term impediment to what you're suggesting is folks who don't need the help taking advantage of the resource distribution. It both massively increases the costs and sours those who have to pay into the system on the whole thing leading to a backlash. If we could just solve this quirk of human nature, we'd be all set. [1] https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-accomodation-gen-z-phenomenon-find-success-in-competitive-job-market-stanford-university-skills-based-hiring/ https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-a...

NuclearPM 3mo ago
This is an issue, but billionaires are a greater issue.
- mrkstu 3mo ago
  You could take away 100% of billionaires capital to redistribute and end up in the exact same place in 4 years.
  - jjav 3mo ago
    You would not end up in the same place because then you'd be in a world without billionaires, so you would not have people who can too easily just buy every politician and law they wish for their own perpetuation. That alone would be a massive win.
    - cucumber3732842 3mo ago
      It's not the ~50 billionares I'm worried about. They are human. You can appeal to Bill Gate's desire to leave a legacy he's proud of. You can appeal to Elon Musk's desire for technological progress. What worries me are the god knows how many "billionaire equivelent" entities and institutions that swing their dicks around in the same manner but do so with the sociopathic ruthlessness of corporations and governments. Peter Thiel may be evil but he'll almost certainly never knowingly instigate genocidal war in a foreign land for marginal benefit to his interests whereas that's exactly the kind of thing that nonhuman entities do because no person is singularly responsible.
      - NuclearPM 3mo ago
        50???
      - ethbr1 3mo ago
        > Peter Thiel may be evil but he'll almost certainly never knowingly instigate genocidal war in a foreign land for marginal benefit to his interests "Thiel's Palantir, Israel agree strategic partnership for battle tech" [2024] https://www.palantir.com/assets/xrfr7uokpv1b/3MuEeA8MLbLDAyxixTsiIe/9e4a11a7fb058554a8a1e3cd83e31c09/C134184_finaleprint.pdf https://www.palantir.com/assets/xrfr7uokpv1b/3MuEeA8MLbLDAyx... Ironically, that's the saved copy hosted by Palantir itself...
watwut 3mo ago
Yeah, disability accommodation like having single dorm room and being allowed to cook for themselves rather then using cantine. Maybe the question is why the cantine is obligatory anyway.
- cake-rusk 3mo ago
  Is there a name for the phenomenon in which you look at something and know that there is something wrong with it but struggle to identify the problem? I got this feeling looking at the (non)word cantine.
  - opan 3mo ago
    Wiktionary lists cantine as an archaic form of canteen, also the french word that canteen came from is also spelled cantine.
ethbr1 3mo ago
You've just arrived back at capitalism: it's the least bad resource allocation optimization algorithm assuming everyone is an amoral asshole and willing to take every advantage they can. Superior systems exist, but they require relaxing the adversarial asshole constraint.

WarmWash 3mo ago

The problem is that when you get more for less, it kills the incentive to do more. This is a really glaring problem, and people go to really great lengths to either sweep it under the rug or hand wave it away.

bluefirebrand 3mo ago
> it kills the incentive to do more I'm an employee. I don't really benefit from doing more. When I do more, someone else makes money. In my experience that someone else is just as likely to lay me off for a cheaper worker as they are to give me a raise The incentives our system produces are already really skewed, and it would be nice to see them skew the other way for once
- WarmWash 3mo ago
  It seems your complaint is a lack of recognition, and maybe redistribution would provide vengeance for this injustice. But that is different than "we ought to start giving raises to people who do less work, not more" which is what "skewing the other way" seems to imply.
  - bluefirebrand 3mo ago
    My observation is that if we leave our recognition up to people with power, they will choose to keep it for themselves or give it to their friends a majority of the time and that seems fucked up to continue to allow in a just society > "we ought to start giving raises to people who do less work, not more" This is completely beside the point, honestly We should not use the most productive members of society as a measuring stick as though they were the average. The average person does "way less work" than your very productive workaholic outliers, but that doesn't mean those people deserve way less. Somehow we've all wound up being measured against the most exceptional people, instead of being measured against the average. Keep in mind we're talking about a society where the median person only makes like $45k per year and exceptional people make many many times more than that I'm not sitting here saying that some random shmuck should have Elon Musks income or anything, we could probably do better than 45k a year though

chung8123 3mo ago

I don't think people realize how much evening out society will impact them. This is a very US (and probably EU) way of thinking. Everyone thinks they are middle class but when it comes down to it there are far more people in poverty and that evening things out will bring down the quality of life for the people advocating for evening out things.

juvvel 3mo ago
No. This is what capitalists want you to believe. The truth is that we are all subsiziding the capital gains of the wealthiest 2%. You could easily pay for generous social security programs by taxing property and capital more (as opposed to labor). But the ultra-wealthy point at the weakest and poorest and tell the average worker "look, they're coming for your house and your humble savings!". This is a very deliberate distraction.
- WarmWash 3mo ago
  Have you looked at wealth distribution or do you just read social media headlines and comments all day? https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/ https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr... See that 50-90% and 90-99%? That's where all the money is. Moreover, the top 1% have tons of assets, but not much actual money. Any "evening out" will come mostly from the 50-99% class. If you want to see a crack in the echochamber, ask yourself why no publication has ever published this chart?
  - gilbetron 3mo ago
    That data is published quite often, no conspiracy here. The point is that the top 1% can be taxed more heavily, not that they own the majority of wealth.
    - welshwelsh 3mo ago
      I'm not sure taxing them more heavily will actually result in significantly more tax revenue in the long run. Think about it: to pay for this tax, the rich will need to sell their assets. Who is going to buy those assets? What impact would that have on the asset price?

techteach00 3mo ago

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about this mythical "excess". I can't afford housing. Millions like me can't. There is no excess. Unless it's being hoarded by the capital class.

zem 3mo ago
I mean, it is very obviously being hoarded by the capital class! there has been tons of writing on the subject, no one can credibly deny that that's what's happening right now.
- closeparen 3mo ago
  The wealth of the capital class is, unsurprisingly, capital - the facilities, equipment, organizational structures, etc. used to make stuff. What does it mean for capital to be hoarded?
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Power is the most important form of capital, followed by land. They hoard both of these.
- nate_meurer 3mo ago
  The wealth of the "capital class", whatever that means, is dwarfed by the debt being run up by governments. My favorite example: if you confiscated all of the wealth from all of the billionaires in the USA, it would fund the federal government for around six months. If you add state and local governments, those funds would last just weeks. The rich don't have your money. Your government does, and they're flushing it down the toilet (and bombing Iran).
  - _DeadFred_ 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - 3mo ago

xedrac 3mo ago

People say this, but I'm not sure I understand how it could be true. For example, taxing billionaires is often cited as the solution to this problem. But if we took Elon Musk's $730 billion fortune and divided it evenly among the US population, people would receive a one-time payment of about $2000, and then that fortune would be gone, and any opportunities or advancements it was creating. So I'm genuinely curious where you see this incredible excess coming from.

hackeraccount 3mo ago
It also misunderstands that nature of Musk's fortune. He's not Scrooge McDuck and they pretend he is. Sell SpaceX at a fire sale. What's it worth? A lot less then it is now. Who would buy it? Poor people? Somehow I don't think so. Musk is a golden goose and there are people who think the best move is to cut him in half and get at all the gold inside.

nate_meurer 3mo ago

If that's true, it's odd that so many social welfare programs across the western world are consuming an ever-growing share of GDP, incurring massive debt, and grinding toward insolvency and collapse. Exactly how much more of our money and labor do you want to take from us in order to continue this madness?

germandiago 3mo ago
European here. I left Europe 14 years ago. I tried to come back. My decision was to run away bc it is impossible to build a reasonable life in a stable way where you do not get smashed mercilessly... It is just too much.
- wuschel 3mo ago
  Where did you end up? Do you have a way to PM you?
  - germandiago 3mo ago
    southeast asia for now, but will move on at some point. Not sure how you can reach me without exposing too much. Just ask away here if you need to or let me know how I can reach you.

laughing_man 3mo ago

The only reason there's more than enough to go around is people work for the betterment of their own life. If you disconnect the link between work and material comfort that simple, undeniable fact will no longer be fact.

shuwix 3mo ago
Tou've said it perfectly. Last time when link between work and material comfort was disconnected was communism. It looked good on paper from 1920's perspective, but was a downward spiral. If we are to be functioning society, people need motivation to do their best ... and then, there's some spare wealth for the unfortunate.
JumpinJack_Cash 3mo ago
> > If you disconnect the link between work and material comfort that simple, undeniable fact will no longer be fact. The disconnect is already there, any 5 year old already understands that stealing a comic book at the comic book store is better than paying for it. And more and more people are resorting to it at every level of society

germandiago 3mo ago

Yes, remove the human incentive to produce, which is that the rest can consume in a way that is profitable enough for the producer and you will see the wxcess disappear in front of your eyes for killing the incentive to produce. Infinitely redistributing does not yield products for all, but scarcity for all.

WarmWash 3mo ago
This is why we pass laws making it illegal to not produce excess. Take that capitalist pig!
- germandiago 3mo ago
  I see, so you are suggesting making black markets appear. Good, I see you studied economic history a lot... There is no way around this, believe me. Not sure why you call pigs to people producing actually. That is how things end up working. Not waiting for people to produce fornyou while you insult them amd try to set infinite restrictions until they do what you want... which by the way looks to me like modern slavery.
  - encrypted_bird 3mo ago
    Just as an aside, I suspect the last line had an implied "/s". If so, I think they really should have included it.
    - germandiago 3mo ago
      True, as I read back it seems it was sarcasm...very short sighted on my side...

hackeraccount 3mo ago

You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.