balderdash@lemmy.zip to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 6 days agoI'm doing my part!lemmy.zipexternal-linkmessage-square145fedilinkarrow-up11.87Karrow-down128
arrow-up11.84Karrow-down1external-linkI'm doing my part!lemmy.zipbalderdash@lemmy.zip to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 6 days agomessage-square145fedilink
minus-squareweissbinder@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·5 days agoPrivate Jets are not the problem. The top 1% must be outlawed.
minus-squarebuttnugget@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·5 days agoI would say both. Multifaceted approach. If there’s a legitimate use case for private jets, maybe they could be allowed once we’ve transitioned to clean energy.
minus-squareMelvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down4·5 days agowe’re all online on a computer. Aren’t we the global 1%?
minus-squareTensileSpark@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2·5 days agoIt looks like about 68% of the world has internet access so I would say no. Source
minus-squareMelvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·5 days agoAnd they also would own a computer and likely a rental or mortgage. You only need to be making $60000 a year to be considered the global 1%
Private Jets are not the problem. The top 1% must be outlawed.
I would say both. Multifaceted approach. If there’s a legitimate use case for private jets, maybe they could be allowed once we’ve transitioned to clean energy.
we’re all online on a computer. Aren’t we the global 1%?
It looks like about 68% of the world has internet access so I would say no. Source
And they also would own a computer and likely a rental or mortgage. You only need to be making $60000 a year to be considered the global 1%