▲ 643 ▼ Shapeshifting (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 months ago by Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com [M] to c/Tumblr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 135 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago (2 children) turn their homes into homeless shelters Ok, so now you've sheltered 500 people, say 10 to a room. I suppose that's nice for them, what about the other 770k in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (2 children) There are 750 billionaires in the US. I get your point about them not having enough real estate to host 1000 persons each, but usually, people considerably underestimate how many billionaires there are and how much they're worth. They wouldn't have to give up their home to shelter 770k people. They could to it with less than 1% of their combined wealth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] square@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) That, and my definition of wealthy encompasses more than just billionaires. I'd include centimillionaires, at least. Edit: the best info I can find says there are about 65k centimillionaire households. permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 child) Their wealth is very different from their homes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Sure. But this is unproductive bad-faith literal reading. permalink fedilink source parent [–] square@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 months ago That's where making them give their wealth away comes in. The homeless shelter thing is more of a "fuck you" than a practical solution. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (2 children) There are 750 billionaires in the US. I get your point about them not having enough real estate to host 1000 persons each, but usually, people considerably underestimate how many billionaires there are and how much they're worth. They wouldn't have to give up their home to shelter 770k people. They could to it with less than 1% of their combined wealth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] square@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) That, and my definition of wealthy encompasses more than just billionaires. I'd include centimillionaires, at least. Edit: the best info I can find says there are about 65k centimillionaire households. permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 child) Their wealth is very different from their homes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Sure. But this is unproductive bad-faith literal reading. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] square@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) That, and my definition of wealthy encompasses more than just billionaires. I'd include centimillionaires, at least. Edit: the best info I can find says there are about 65k centimillionaire households. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 child) Their wealth is very different from their homes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Sure. But this is unproductive bad-faith literal reading. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago Sure. But this is unproductive bad-faith literal reading. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] square@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 months ago That's where making them give their wealth away comes in. The homeless shelter thing is more of a "fuck you" than a practical solution. permalink fedilink source parent
