359
submitted 2 months ago by MrMakabar@slrpnk.net to c/degrowth@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] okamiueru@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So, generated value vs what is compensated. It looks like to me like the difference is the basis for the absurd wealth inequality. So, if we increased wages, let's say roughly 2x for the mean, 5x for the bottom 10p, and 1.5x for 90p, and 0.5x up to 95p. Has anyone done a calculation similar to this, to determine just how few people, that is, how high the percentile, and how low that factor, for that to actually add up? Maybe it even allows for everyone to live decent lives, just mildly inconveniencing a few thousand?

One can start wondering if a few hundred heads rolling isn't a valid moral least-evil proposition. Life considered equal. More people die every single day due to arguably greed. In most of the 99.9p+ cases, I assume is due to inherited wealth, and existing market capture. So it's not like some exceptional value is lost to humanity either.

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
359 points (99.4% liked)

Degrowth

809 readers
16 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS