The reasoning could be that this makes reliably scaling down (and thus keep making a profit) easier, starting with getting rid of SREs.
We have similar movement going on with Xing here in Hamburg, Germany (once conceived as a LinkedIn competitor).
Great names that still have a lot of momentum, but are expected by ownership to slow down.
Reminds me of Scott Galloway’s most profitable investment having been a yellow pages company. Yes, the market shrunk, but they could shrink running costs as fast or even faster.
So when I think “every important thing in my life is scarce”, that is just incorrect imagination? 11 billion people can live on a lake with perfect child and health care?
I don't see a point in striving for a society where most of the population is only meeting tier 1 needs. That's a human chicken farm, not a civilization.
The question is not whether some individuals strive for it, but whether the entire ecosystem moves toward it. Different contexts, different mechanisms.
In 100 years you'll be dead as Caesar's ghost regardless of what car you drive or how braggable your social media presence makes your life appear. Pointless bling is pointless, regardless of how it's framed. Edit: apparently that poked someone in the worldview. Nifty.
Unnecessary suffering is also pointless. Existence of life in a cold indifferent universe is pointless. The whole point is that it's all pointless, might as well make it worthwhile, whatever version of it one prefers.
Historically, whoever is better armed and guillotines or similar. It's nice to dream about our species collectively pulling it's head out of it's own ass but there's really no precedent for it.
The guilty flee where none pursueth. Are we now going to argue that aligning society to service (primarily) hyperconcentration of wealth at the cost of every ecosystem on the planet while burning through non-renewable resources isn't sociopathic? Bear in mind we live in a closed system. Oh what, you thought I was implying having your worldview handed to you by someone else's marketing team is sociopathic? Nah, aim higher up the food chain.
I will vote for the party that has a believable plan.
So far, at least in Hamburg, Germany, I feel it is mostly a fight amongst many for the same, very scarce resources.
It seems like it's a different picture in the states. "The many" are in no way near able to afford/accomplish owning a house on a lake. This is reserved for the elite.
I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy downing half a fifth of tequila and setting fire to my neighbor's rose bushes but I don't consider that part of my definition of a functional society.
The paper mentions basic human needs like calories, potable water and shelter. What you are talking about goes way beyond biological needs.
This is the problem with partial abundance and the absolute definition of scarcity. Scarcity still exists even after you have a million yachts. You would have to be crazy to argue that scarcity doesn't exist, but absolute scarcity is meaningless in the face of humans with limited brain sizes.
We definitely have partial abundance. Please don't shut this discussion down because of imprecise language.
It's just massively taking for granted what you have and being a sucker for marketing. Food, warmth, companionship/love, these things aren't important to you?
Make it seem to be profitable, obviously. France’s system is genius - supposedly, income can be shared between all household
members regardless of age.
So the marginal tax rate becomes very low if you have three kids. Even incentivizes one parent to work less.
For people to be able to save and expand their wealth in land, land needs to remain desirable. Desire is driven by the need for housing. Need for housing stays high if the rate of new housing stays low. Thus, rate of new housing stays low. Else we would have a lot more very beautiful sky scrapers.
