• saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    The irony is “necessities”.

    Plenty of unemployed people out there enjoying life on levels you’ll never get to ibecause of “nice to haves” being classified as “necessities”.

    It’s something only the top echelon of Earth’s population could be plagued with. The same proportion with the high suicide rates and mental health issues. The ones that can’t live without being in a “developed” society.

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      if it is necessary the industry behind it should not be allowed to profit and should be run and owned by the working public.

        • stray@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 days ago

          If you mean letting public goods be run with a profit incentive for the purpose of increasing efficiency or such, I think what you’ll find every time is that the service shifts focus to the median user and disregards fringe cases like users with disabilities, remote areas, etc. I would also expect material quality to degrade as those with cheaper up-front costs would be valued over expensive durable ones.

    • NotSteve_@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Plenty of unemployed people out there enjoying life on levels you’ll never get to ibecause of “nice to haves” being classified as “necessities”.

      Are you talking about working class people here or billionaires? If working class then I’d like to know what country since I was laid off a few months ago and unemployment doesn’t cover my rent even if I were to save it all and forgo eating