Just to put that in perspective, that's enough to pay around a $1 million dollar annual salary to each of these 84,000 lost jobs, or to pay $100,000 salary and still keep 90% for themselves.

Are they rich enough yet? Or do they still need more?

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago

Enough is never enough

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

All for taxing the rich more, but you're conflating wealth and income here.

[+] maplesaga@lemmy.world -12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I dont think its as simple as that, because if you start dishing the money out inflation rises and you erode what you're taxing. Maybe on the gold standard it worked something like that, but that was a half a century ago now.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe the gold standard had the right idea then, or at least a more right idea than we currently have. When your head has been underwater for half a century, maybe it's time to accept that the water isn't really that deep and you've been swimming the wrong direction all along. If it takes a complete economic implosion and redesign to realize that billionaires and soon trillionaires are not in fact superior superhumans who deserve all the world's worship, as painful as that process may be, perhaps it is becoming necessary. And I don't know how long we're going to keep going before we all admit that it is necessary, but I think I am ready to admit that it is necessary.

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I couldn't agree more. All these printed money bailouts for every failed asset bubbles erode minimum wages and salaries.

Though a non-hard money is historically a left leaning ideal.

[–] slykethephoxenix@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh thank goodness. At least they're okay.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 2 weeks ago

I know. Here I was worried about how the oligarchs may have to tighten their belt like the rest of us.