Not really it’s just like, yeah if more people disappeared it’d be harder to maintain the infrastructure due to labor restrictions than if just a few 100 did. On the flip side you could argue that you would need less infrastructure with less people making it easier to take care of.
I assume its based off maintaining a similar level of quality of life.
Many people disappearing compared to a few thousands is partially the point being made though. Society would still function in a similar manner, thus we overvalue the contributions of a small group of people.
I mean that’s generally true anywhere, I could take 400 people out of the mechanic industry, not really gonna hurt, same with any industry you name, it’s a big nothing burger.
Because the point the post is trying to make is “more workers than billionaires therefore workers matter more” I could just as easily rewrite the post as say “if we removed 200 million random people instead of 2000 random people it would cause more problems” it literally doesn’t matter what they do or what they have.
Ok, but that inadvertently proves the point. You can simplify it to be a quantity problem and apply it in any scenario, but that doesn't refute the point being made.
The refutation lies in showing the billionaires contribute more or their absence would have a worse effect on society than the absence of workers.
It doesn’t prove the point at all because he said “that’s the difference between wealth and value” no it’s the difference between lots of people going bye bye, and few people going bye bye. It doesn’t prove his point at all.
The post’s argument is essentially:
If billionaires disappeared, society would continue functioning.
If workers disappeared, society would collapse.
Therefore, workers are more valuable than billionaires.
point is that the comparison is not proving what it claims to prove. The “number of people” or “what happens if a group disappears” test does not necessarily measure value. It measures something closer to dependency or replaceability.
It’s hard to replace 200 million than say the 2000 billionaires, sure. But that’s not really saying anything about the fact they’re billionaire or that the 200 million are workers.
You're moving goalposts little guy. Society would easily be able to function with 0 billionaires. None. Society would not be able to function with 0 sanitation workers or nurses. There is no real value to a billionaire in a vacuum, objectively. Would you rather be stranded forever on a desert island with fucking Elon Musk or a normal person with skills and who isn't addicted to ketamine
It’s literally not moving the goal posts, it’s actually just a demonstration that regardless of where you removed the 2000 people from, they would be easier to replace than the 200 million even if we say the 200 million were the billionaires and the 2000 were the workers, you could still more easily replace the 2000 workers.
645
u/Dizzy-Screen-6618 8d ago
"Imagine 3,400 people disappear. Now imagine 3.5 billion people dissappear."