• MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s a requirement for people to suffer for others to get ahead. It’s the entire basis of our economy and given the unsustainable population, it’s only going to get worse. Like much much worse. The redistribution of wealth would probably take a war tbh. There’s a ton of people who just don’t care, or have been indoctrinated to believe they deserve to suffer. No one wants to fight a war. We maintain status quo until the earth kicks us off. And we’re left with sustainable population.

    • Widget@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol what. We have machines and automation now. We can just make manufacturing equipment “suffer” while the humans “get ahead”.

      The zero-sum worldview has been dead since the industrial revolution. Any widespread suffering at this point is the fault of humans.

      Edit: unless you’re trying to say something else?

        • Widget@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Instead of money? I would imagine it would be money.

          It’s not that people stop working. We still need food, shelter, communication, entertainment, etc. Money is how you convert goods, and I don’t understand how you think that need would vanish.

          But worker efficiency is through the roof. One farmer can grow enough to feed thousands of people. A factory with 10 people can make millions of a given product a year. We can communicate from across the globe without anyone having to carry the message by hand. What makes you think we can’t at the very least give everyone food and shelter in those circumstances? No one intrinsically has to suffer. It only happens because of human greed.

          • rastilin@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right, even the Roman empire, where 90% of people were farmers, worked out how to give food to everyone. In countries where less than 1% of people are farmers they can’t work out how to get enough food to people while ships dump excess grain in the ocean to stabilize prices?

  • strayce@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This will more likely result in collusion between the two. Your boss will subsidise your rent, but only if you live in one of his buddy’s houses. It’s company towns with extra steps.

    • FrowingFostek@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d love to see small companies try and pry those ownership rights, out of the cold dead hands of large real estate corporations.

      Now battle of the big fish? Amazon vs Blackrock. Walmart vs Zillow? Idk, but that would be dope to see capitalists cannibalize themselves.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just make as many jobs (and social interactions) WFH as possible. Everyone moves to nowhere ruralville, pays almost nothing in rent, and turns that vast swathes of flyover blue in the process. All the old people will move to the cities for Healthcare, and the rural-urban divide will invert.