this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
320 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
58076 readers
2810 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, this. 50% might be a bit much because unfortunately, if you give them too much ownership then you'll just end up sending the mines overseas again. At least here you're (hopefully) creating jobs for Americans, both indigenous and not.
Tbh, in my opinion if someone's building on land that is culturally and/or religiously significant to indigenous tribes in the US, then there should be something along the lines of 5% of profits gets split between all US tribes (based on tribal membership), and then a split of >30% of ownership and profits that gets split between the tribes that have a direct claim to the cultural/religiousness of the land used (with the claim again being split between tribes based on tribal membership).
Note, those are "ass numbers" (I pulled them out of my ass) and not meant to actually be specific values so much as they're intended to get the idea across.
My biggest worry with such a system, however, is that it could lead to increased corporate entitlement ("we're paying the "savage tax" aren't we? Fuck off and let us rape the land lmoa"). At the same time though, Native Americans have a hard enough time of getting corpos to respect them; so receiving profits and sharing ownership of companies or installations on historically significant tribal land might be worth it despite the risk of further encouraging corporate entitlement.
Nah I'm with the other lemmy user, 50%, take it or increase it. And they should have a say on every project and be unionized. It's time we stood up to the companies and business folks that seek to imprison people in their homeland.
And we should push for Land Back rather than trying to make the companies and business folks feel safe here.
If the mining company doesn't make enough $$$ they won't do it and will just go somewhere else that makes $$$. You cut out 50% profit and it makes it a pretty easy decision to avoid US mines and go to other countries.
Ultimately they are for profit businesses that will focus their investment on where they can make the most profit. It's sort of like how fracking for oil is only done once it reaches a certain price per barrel. Before a price point, it's not profitable. After, it is.
50% profit reduction is a huge decrease. Would make virtually any other mine in the world more profitable.
Eh, if they fail, that just means they don't get to poison the earth and groundwater while stealing resources from the ground, sounds like a win-win to me.
No, they still will. And we will still buy the lithium to run our phones and laptops.
It's just we will export the damage to 3rd world countries instead.
I believe change needs to start locally, and if we rise up and challenge capital interests, maybe other countries can too.
That's a noble sentiment, truly.
So, let's consider taking a stand by eliminating our use of products like lithium-ion batteries, laptops, electric cars, and all the myriad of devices that make our lives more convenient and connected. If we really want to inspire change, locally and globally, we should start by examining our own consumption habits, right?
I trust you'll lead the way by taking the first steps to eliminate your reliance on these technologies. It's a tall order, but change has to start somewhere, doesn't it?
Are ass numbers anything like ass penny’s?
I'm not advocating this just making a point.
They could have 30% ownership and still receive 70% of the income. It's all in the contract. In this case, regardless of the financials, it would mean that they only have 30% of the power on decision making, and that's if that's left up to ownership, in any capacity. Maybe they only have 30% of the votes for the C-suite and after that owners are boxed out.
There are so many different ways to set up a company. Who knows.