Funny

8812 readers

1601 users here now

General rules:

Be kind.
All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1668

Once-in-a-generation (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

198 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

this means that you get more economic growth by giving those rich people more money to spend, not by lifting up the other 90%.

This is probably true for industries like fashion, but I disagree with this point applying in general. There is only so much food, gasoline, and paper products an individual is willing to buy, no matter how rich.

The restaurant industry, for example, would collapse as we know it if most non-wealthy people suddenly don't have any extra income to spend on prepared food. They need velocity in orders just to remain open at all. I doubt most places could remain open off of a few rich people buying a lot.

This isn't to say that they won't stop extracting more from the lower earners. Many of them would be fine killing off industry if it makes themselves richer. I personally think all of it's a short-sighted cash grab that's gonna keep poisoning the economy until something changes.