913
We want to live (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 7 months ago (7 children)

The irony is "necessities".

Plenty of unemployed people out there enjoying life on levels you'll never get to ibecause of "nice to haves" being classified as "necessities".

It's something only the top echelon of Earth's population could be plagued with. The same proportion with the high suicide rates and mental health issues. The ones that can't live without being in a "developed" society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    Plenty of unemployed people out there enjoying life on levels you'll never get to ibecause of "nice to haves" being classified as "necessities".

    Are you talking about working class people here or billionaires? If working class then I'd like to know what country since I was laid off a few months ago and unemployment doesn't cover my rent even if I were to save it all and forgo eating

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    if it is necessary the industry behind it should not be allowed to profit and should be run and owned by the working public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Alternatively what if it does profit but all the profit goes towards public good? I.e. into the communal balance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    If you mean letting public goods be run with a profit incentive for the purpose of increasing efficiency or such, I think what you'll find every time is that the service shifts focus to the median user and disregards fringe cases like users with disabilities, remote areas, etc. I would also expect material quality to degrade as those with cheaper up-front costs would be valued over expensive durable ones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    no i meant more in the sense of: instead of the company not being allowed to profit, they can profit but 50% of the profit goes into the communal balance.

    it would be easier to implement that because all you have to do is to order that 50% of the company shares go towards the city/municipality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent