Don't you mean a quarter of the footprint? It's half the size per side.
nintendiator
joined 1 year ago
Actually, they should more-than-mirror inflation.
See, most people only have one job, so one source of payment. But they have N expenditures: health, food, electricity, transportation.
If inflation increases those general prices 20%, that's 4 (or 5, or 6, or...) 20% increases in cost. Since currently wages are already lower than the cost of living, a raise in pay mirroring inflation would allow it to cover for one of those increases, on average, so the employee now has actually become poorer than before.
Of course, but maybe destroying the modern economy is a good thing. Things like serving essential needs causing hyperinflation showcases that modern economy is purposefully built to make people lose. No matter what you try to do to help society, something (or rather, someone) counterplays you.
IMO the real solution is that things that are essential, like food and health, should not depend on money exchange to be provided, period. Sure, producers of food and providers of health should be paid for their work, but that payment should not have a codependence with the fact that the hungry or unhealthy person get the attention they need.
The issue starts when everyone gets a blanket pay raise across industries and communities for no reason.
And this is the failure of your theory. The raise is not "for no reason", that's just capitalism apologia talk. it's because being in a community (aka: society) now costs more.
It costs money to produce food.
The more people you want to feed, the more money it costs.
Food production is not free. Food distribution is not free.
Then it should be a task of the State, as "feeding people" is, quite obviously, a task Too Big to Fail. And, as such, the State can (and should) just automatically print the money needed to reward the work done. Feeding the hungry should not depend on a "budget". A budget is basically putting a price on human lives.
Internet Archive archives now have DRM
Like, what's even the point of having them, then? Not much of an "Archive", are they? Didn't expect IA of all places to get enshittified.
undefined> I think that as the fediverse grows, it might become common/necessary to have a few accounts in order to see everything you want to see.
Exactly. And that's good, because that's how the internet is supposed to function in the first place.
(Plus, it helps against the enshittification and all that)
Personally I feel the entire point is it should be done like that. Like it was in the 90s. Every little cats community can be out there and independent from each other; communities, identities and administration can remain separate. For discoverability, rather than make it part of the platform which would eventually induce dark incentives towards the kind of consolidation that happened with Reddit in the first place, well, why not also do it like back in the 90s? There used to be the webdirectories, as well as the webrings (in Yahoo, Geocities, etc) that served as an independent discovery system.
undefined> Unless there’s some sort of mitigation, like a federated subscription list+multi"reddits" or something similar
Sounds like an argument for the return of the glorious 90s' webrings and site directories. Because, honestly, the idea that the content has to be "everywhere" is just unfeasible. As we say in Chile, the key is not knowing everything, is knowing the phone number (or web address) of the guy who does.
I'm not saying doctors et all should not be paid for their work. I'm saying it should not depend on a money transaction on the afflicted citizen. I think it's perfectly feasible to, for example, have the State pay for things that are essential, it's kind of the entire role of the State after all. Or even better, give doctors and providers of those services the same treatment as in not collecting from them for stuff.
Also, if there's such things as "companies Too Big To Fail should be handed over to the State", then that also applies to Tasks Too Big To Fail. Like, you know, keeping your citizens alive. I insist: the core task of the State is to keep the Country alive.
If that collapses the economy, IMO that's an indicative that the economy model is not good, or perhaps even unethical.