Dude, that’s not how it works at all!
Stock price is a popularity contest that has virtually no basis on the finances of a company.

See Tesla’s crazy high price that has no basis on their current or future revenue. But if their stock dropped to 0, they would still be selling cars at a profit and wouldn’t go out of business. It wouldn’t change anything.

Companies get money from stock at IPO and when they extremely rarely issue new shares. That’s it. After IPO, you buying stock doesn’t give any money to the company. You are buying it from someone else.

If ever fewer young and able people have to take care of ever more elderly, it won’t have a good outcome.

It takes fewer resources to care for elderly than raise children. Not raising a child means there’s a surplus to care for the elderly. Then the elderly die leaving more surplus behind. It’s not only a theoretical based on money but we have all of history that shows this truth. For example WW2 killed the most productive members of society leaving only the elderly to be cared for. The result was a global economic boom.

“Deserve” implies to me

That’s only semantics. You agree with the OP, you only don’t like the wording.

And I don’t think they deserve less than the rest of us.

So the Doctor that studied for 16 hours a day while I played video games and then worked 16 hour shifts at the hospital during residency for 5 years while I worked 7 hours shifts at Taco Bell should be paid the same as me?

Capitalism has perverse unjust rewards but that doesn’t make the opposite just either.

Air conditioning or cooking is rather nitpicking, those are not real issues, technological advances and passive house design would easily solve that.

The entire world doesn’t have the climate of Japan where it’s possible to live in an apartment without AC and heat. No amount of design can ameliorate 38C high humidity.

growing food directly around you

Only a subset of food can be grown locally and that local food is only available seasonally. It’s the system we already have.

You could also have communal kitchens or diners or cafeteria.

That’s not a technological solution to cooking. That’s social which is far harder if not impossible to overcome.

The greatest luxury of all would be to have free time.

That doesn’t follow. The same work needs to be done, if not more because reducing energy means reducing automation so people have to work to make up the difference.

It bothers me to a minor extent to technically contribute to some of these companies.

Outside of large shareholders like how Musk owns Tesla and sells his stock to fund fascism, buying stock does nothing for companies, ethical or not.

If you buy shares of an ethical green company, none of that money goes to the company. You bought the shares from someone else. It’s like buying a used book of Harry Potter. Absolutely no money goes to JK Rowling.

It’s not taking 30% and spreading it. It’s we only ever needed to be making 30% of our total being reasonably distributed for everyone to reach those standards.

I don’t understand what you mean by those two sentences. They seem to be in conflict with each other.

You have 100 coins. To say we need to be making 30% of our total being reasonably distributed means you now have only 70 coins.

"leaving a substantial surplus for additional consumption, public luxury, scientific advancement, and other social investments.”

You had 100 coins and now you have 70. You can still buy luxuries but 30% less than what you had before it was redistributed.

Money sitting in a bank is being used by the bank to invest in unethical businesses.

I’d suggest to not worry and put almost all of it in vanguard total market index fund (as long as you don’t need the money for 20 years). Use the profits to help people.

That’s the same thing. The paper is arguing against the need to increase production vs redistribution of what is currently produced.

That isnt a 30% reduction, it’s only needing to make 30% of what we already are doing.

Where does that 30% come from? They are explicitly saying that their analysis isn’t about increasing production of anything. Redistribution means taking away from the rich developed population to give to the poor. They said take 30% and redistribute it. If you are on Lemmy, that includes you.

Argh! I read it 3 times and missed it. I only know Celebrate.

So a program that interfaces to a discord channel?

??? Is that a reference to a program because I didn’t see them in the list.

When I read “West”, I read “developed world”.

Japan, South Korea, Tawain, etc, are as developed as the West. Most of China is now too, but there are billions more that aren’t developed.

Does iOS have per file permissions? I don’t think you can blame Google for something the OS can’t do.

That’s exactly what the article proposed:

'Drawing on recent empirical evidence, we show that ending poverty and ensuring decent living standards (DLS) for all, with a full range of necessary goods and services (a standard that approximately 80% of the world population presently does not achieve) can be provisioned for a projected population of 8.5 billion people in 2050 with around 30% of existing productive capacity, depending on our assumptions about distribution and technological deployment. "

So if you and everyone are willing to live on 30% less “money”, worldwide poverty would be eliminated.

I think a light version runs in a web browser but the full version is a program.

I misunderstood. I thought the community title meant you are VERY attracted to cars.

This is the correct answer. It’s the power company’s problem. Weird accidents can happen.

Apples and rice in the US were found to be contaminated with arsenic from the soil. Farms are moved, soil is treated, processing is changed.

Here what can be done for Chocolate:

https://www.asyousow.org/blog/2022/8/17/new-report-explains-simple-safe-and-low-cost-solutions-to-reduce-levels-of-lead-and-cadmium-in-chocolate

Some brands of chocolate do not have high lead. It’s not a necessary part of chocolate production.

It’s not as safe as other chocolates that have significantly less lead and cadmium. Furthermore, in some cases the contamination comes from the processing machinery, not the soil, so it completely under their control to immediately eliminate it. Yet they didn’t say they planned to address the problem. They could also begin the process of eliminating cadmium by replanting on uncontaminated soil.