shakedown.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A community for live music fans with roots in the jam scene. Shakedown Social is run by a team of volunteers (led by @clifff and @sethadam1) and funded by donations.

Administered by:

Server stats:

252
active users

#structural

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

Limitarianism: why we need to put a cap on the super-rich

Suppose you worked 50 hours a week between the ages of 20 and 65
– week in week out, year in year out
❓how much would your hourly wage need to be so that by the end you had amassed Musk’s wealth?

The answer is: $1,871,794 per hour.

💥Almost two million dollars per hour. Every working hour for 45 years.

Elon Musk might be seen as exceptional, but there were 2,668 other billionaires on that Forbeslist.

Together they held $12,700,000,000,000.

Do you, like me, see all those zeros dancing before your eyes?

That’s because we don’t know how to take in that number.

On average the value of their assets is $4.75bn.
If we ask the same question again
– what’s the average lifetime hourly wage?
– we get $40,598 per hour, the equivalent to what many Americans hope to earn in a year.

How much is too much?
When I started this research, 10 years ago, several of my colleagues
– professors in philosophy, economics and related disciplines
– were initially amused that I wanted to delve into this question.
Some argued that #poverty was what mattered, not #inequality.
A few felt that focusing on the rich was an indication of envy on my part.

But I wasn’t alone.
Across various disciplines, scholars were starting to see that something was happening at the upper levels of society,
and we ought to pay attention.
I started to think through the #ethics of extreme wealth concentration in a systematic way,
and after a decade I became convinced that
👉we must create a world in which no one is super-rich
– that there must be a cap on the amount of wealth any one person can have.
❇️I call this #limitarianism.

As a concept, limitarianism is simple.
But what does it mean in practice?

My book endeavours to answer that question, but it can best be understood as a regulative ideal
– an outcome to strive for but which, like the eradication of poverty, is unlikely to be definitively achieved.

In practical terms, limitarianism calls for three kinds of action.
♦️First there is #structural action. Our societies’ key social and economic institutions should give people genuinely equal opportunities, through ❇️affordable childcare, free high-quality education and a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy.
The more structural steps we take to reduce inequality, the less need there will be for the second strategy:

♦️fiscal action.
If taxation were our only tool for achieving a limitarian society,
💥the tax rate would need to be set at 100% for wealth and income beyond a certain point
(spoiler alert: it is not the only tool).
Still, there is a very strong case for imposing a cap on extreme wealth.

The third kind of action limitarianism calls for is
♦️ethical action: we all need to embrace a limitarian ethos.

One objection to this might be that limiting how much wealth a person can accrue would require us to give up private property or the market mechanism, and force us into USSR-style communism.

Such an objection is nonsense,
and it’s probably just another attempt to silence meaningful criticism of the status quo.

Markets are a very powerful tool for securing material welfare;
private property is a cornerstone of our security, autonomy and prosperity.

The real question, which we must seek to answer, is rather which constraints on the market and private property we need if we are to achieve limitarianism.

theguardian.com/books/2024/jan

The Guardian · Limitarianism: why we need to put a cap on the super-richBy Guardian staff reporter

The Supreme Court is not going to police itself.
The only remedy to the problem of the court’s corruption — to say nothing of its power — is to subject it to the same checks and limits we associate with the other branches.
The court may adjudicate disputes within the constitutional order, but it does not exist above or outside its reach.
In practice, this means the Democratic Party will have to abandon its squeamishness about challenging and shaping the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
Whether it’s through #structural #change or a simple #ethics #code, it is up to elected officials to remind the court that it serves the republic, and not the other way around.

nytimes.com/2023/04/11/opinion

The New York TimesOpinion | Clarence Thomas Is as Free as Ever to Treat His Seat Like a Winning Lottery TicketBy Jamelle Bouie

Thanks go to earthquake-safety engineers like @KitMiyamoto, the team @geosafety team and countless others on seismic front lines spreading a safer construction culture. I would so love not to have to keep writing the same story over and over. revkin.substack.com/p/gauging-
---
RT @KitMiyamoto
Investing in #structural strengthening can save lives. Let's make sure we're doing all we can to protect our…
twitter.com/KitMiyamoto/status

Long overdue #introduction,

I’m a #structuralengineer and a #software developer. I tried to do both for 5+ years with an emphasis on #structural before deciding it would be a lot better for my career and happiness to focus on the #software.

I’m currently working as a #fullstackengineer. I also do contract work related to #sustainabledesign #embodiedcarbon #sustainability

Other interests:
#dataviz #bridges #emacs #foss #cats #builtenvironment

Previously @recursecenter