balderdash@lemmy.zip to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 7 months agoI'm doing my part!lemmy.zipimagemessage-square143linkfedilinkarrow-up11.93Karrow-down128
arrow-up11.91Karrow-down1imageI'm doing my part!lemmy.zipbalderdash@lemmy.zip to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 7 months agomessage-square143linkfedilink
minus-squareweissbinder@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·7 months agoPrivate Jets are not the problem. The top 1% must be outlawed.
minus-squarebuttnugget@lemmy.worldBannedlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·7 months 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-down4·7 months agowe’re all online on a computer. Aren’t we the global 1%?
minus-squareTensileSpark@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2·7 months agoIt looks like about 68% of the world has internet access so I would say no. Source
minus-squareMelvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·7 months 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%