Yes. But is that part of the natural order of the universe, or a factor of design. Because some phones have better or worse resale value, I believe it’s a factor of design - and therefore something we can control.

> Trickle down is a description of an economic thing that happens.

No, it’s a description of failed economic policy that has made the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

> You've latched onto those words because it sounds like "a trickle" and that's a bad sounding thing when your goal is taking away Elon Musk's money.

I mean I’m not going to deny that would make me happy, but it’s also not really what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about the design of products for longevity to minimize their environmental impact. The intersection of this and capitalism is that capitalism rewards consumption and extraction, not sustainability. And the word “trickle” isn’t actually the problem here - the problem is wealth inequality has gotten exponentially worse since the idea of making the rich richer to help the poor was invented in the 80s to scam people into enriching the rich.

> Tesla's economic activity as a "given" that's good for people and that's good because people are entitled to that, but then down the other side and say "he's hoarding wealth, economics doesn't work!"

Trickle down economics DOESN’T work. Economics works, but it’s just a description of what’s happening.

But to directly address your point: If half of elon’s wealth (in the form of tesla shares) is transferred over the next five years to all tesla workers - do you genuinely believe that tesla will create LESS economic value? Can you point to some specific thing that is harmed besides elon’s ability to buy elections?

The people who do the work should get a larger chunk of the profits from that work. Yes that’s socialism. Use it as a slur all you want. Will a little sliver of socialism fix sustainable product design? Probably not - which is why it wasn’t what anybody was talking about here except you.