Yeah from a macro perspective the snowball effect of capital leads to extremely unfair wealth distribution. But the image is from a micro perspective. Wages are closer to 60%-80% of profit produced and the image is claiming it's like 20%.
The image is kind of a bad way to portray the underlying problem. The skimming of wealth from the working class is real but the rate isn't as dramatic as the image claims.
I would much rather do direct support. Conveniently, I also lose so much respect for people that run ads that I don't want to support them. OTOH, I spend way more on patreon and bandcamp than I would on subscription services.
Well it was net operating income, so before reinvestment expenses. But are you trying to count all future profits from reinvested wealth? Why not just say they extract infinite value then.
Sure fine. Lets look at the fortune 50 that I work for.
2024, $5.5 billion in profit. 415,000 employees (probably mostly part time). About 13,000 per employee.
Yeah sure that's life changing but that isn't 4 times more than what people are getting paid like the image claims.
A majority of people are probably paying more in taxes than their amount of surplus value extracted by the capitalists. But one of these things is at least partially for the common good while the other is pure parasitism.
No not really. I forget the figures because I haven't done this in a while but if you take a corporations dividends/buybacks and divide by the number of employees it's only like a few thousand or ~10k a year usually.
Notable that it's the author of the article calling people peasants and talking down to workers, not Karp.
Fuck you Joe Wilkins. I hope Karp is right and you have to work with your hands like 'a peasant' in your words. You might have to do something useful for society instead of writing ragebait for Futurism.
You can't scale the energy a solar panel generates per day from the nameplate capacity because you don't get days of uninterrupted sunlight. It doesn't make much sense to try to estimate at a higher resolution either because of clouds.
Why would you want to do that? And what kind of lighting system in 2026 uses 400 Watts?
A commercial one might and because that's the first step to figuring out how much it uses in a 5 day work week, or per month or year.
Are you seriously saying that when you’re using your 2000 watt hair dryer, you want to pretend that you used it for an hour, and then scale that back to the few seconds you actually used it?
No because if you're measuring usage of something in seconds it isn't going to have a meaningful impact on household consumption.
The reason most people think kWh is intuitive is that they’re used to it because their electrical utility uses it.
Ok even if that is true and they're both equally unintuitive you're the one who wants everyone to switch to an unfamiliar unit for no apparent reason. Why does it make so much more sense to talk about solar and electric car charging on the scale seconds of power than hours that everyone should change units?