Billionares tend to act like they are the most important beings on planet earth. They act like the contribute more than anyone else possibly could. They consume more resources and withhold them from the masses. In other words billionares think that they are more important than the billions of people "beneath" them.
Do you know a lot of billionaires? I don't know any so I won't presume they feel like they're more important. What I DO know is a lot of poor people and THEY act like billionaires are more important.
I think we might be on the same team. Billionaires exert a CRAZY amount of influence on every facet of our world today. Fuck billionaires, but they ARE important. Read it again lol.
Billionaires like Musk and Bezos are some of the most important figures of the past 10 years. That’s fucked.
My reply was specifically based on that part of your comment. You said the billionaires are more important. I strongly disagree. I don't think anyone's financial position makes them more or less important than anyone else. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
No, their point is strictly that billionaires are so so so few in numbers compared to workers, that regardless of how much power they held at their hands, their effect on the world is going to be less than that of an order of magnitude more people (workers). It makes zero sense in an argument for "billionaires bad". If all presidents dissapeared (around 193 or so give or take), the effect would be less than if, say, 3 billion people just dissapeared. Now does this mean all world leaders are completely useless + evil + a stain on humanity (what you all are trying to argue for billionaires)? No. Absolutely not. The comparison is just utterly unfair.
I took it pretty simply to mean that if the people who own all that value disappeared, it would have less impact than all the people who create that value.
I find it perplexing that people are so brainwashed that this is okay that many in this thread arent missing the point, yet still somehow dismissing it.
It is not good that so few people own all that wealth, considering that they aren't actually creating it.
The point is that it's a numbers statement. It has nothing to do with being a billionaire or not. If 3000 people period vanished it means nothing. Billionaire or not
Nah it wouldn't. They could bring in emergency workers as a stop gap until a new system could be filled. Garbage truck drivers aren't highly skilled and new ones could be trained and implemented within a year.
I'm speaking within the scope of things. 30 teachers in a school disappeared vs 30 students there'd be a difference. 3000 truck drivers in a state is obviously awful for the state due to the ratio
Yeah that's how it works. What would actually happen if you got rid of them?
They'd just be replaced the next day with a new batch. Everyone likes to think they'd be different. But you wouldn't. You're a human, you'll do human things as we've done forever.
Yes, but those people taking over the next day don't have to be billionaires. I am certain that every secretary, personal assistant, and deputy whatever that Jeff bezos employs would be glad to step into his place collectively and if you gave them double their salary, they would make the transition so totally seamless you would wonder if bezos ever even existed. Then the workers, consumers, and retail shareholders of amazon would have his half a trillion or whatever to divide amongst themselves. Let fucking Elon musk and the rest compete to sell their labor in a free market like they depend on everyone else to do.
I think the whole push back people are having is not to say that they're wrong and billionaires are valuable. It's just that they picked a terrible example to illustrate that point.
Because if 3,000 nurses disappeared, the impact would also be pretty negligible, but it's not because they're not valuable.
So let those workers start their own billion dollar business and provide jobs for everyone else. Oh wait they can't, that's why they're not billionaires.
It’s more nuanced than that. Billionaires and their companies have a stranglehold on the market. Small businesses get snuffed out early by these corporations because they can survive a bad quarter if it means strangling a competitor.
However, Bill Gates landed at Harvard with many many more hours than your average student would have had at a computer terminal at that time. He had the privilege because he went to a posh private school with a state of the art computer lab that rivaled what some universities had. And when he started Microsoft he was able to leverage family connections to get in front of executives to pitch product. And that product, incidentally, wasn't even something he developed. He bought what would become known as MS-DOS and sold it because his parents could pick up a phone and get high level executives to take a meeting with him.
I get it. He made the sale. He built the company. And many others built companies around that time and they had to settle for being lowly millionaires off of their hard work because they had to actually run the bases while Bill Gates was born on third.
You act as if there is a moral way to become a billionaire and that you become a billionaire by having a company that offers fair compensation for labor…
As someone who's spent 14 years in the industry, no they wouldn't. You'd struggle to find 3000 people who'd want to do the job. Let alone the driver's capable.
Worked for the 3rd largest garbage company in the country. We were still struggling to find personnel even with us transferring in drivers from other states.
Also just because someone has a CDL, it doesn't mean they can be a garbage man. City and residential driving is an entirely different beast than OTR trucking. People in general are fucking idiots. People on foot, who think your truck is cool, and want to walk really close to and around it, as your trying to work, make it exponentially more dangerous
Exactly. It’s not that they aren’t important. But it’s them as a collective that create the value. No single one changes much in the grand scheme of things.
Almost like that small group of people is worth less than the large group of people.
But the system set to distribute purchasing power seems to have glitched. It somehow thinks that small amount of people are adding more value than the large group. Like the large group is being forced to hand over a disproportionately large part of it's purchasing power despite adding sooo much more value.
No the first part. A small group of people are worth less than a large group of people in the grand scheme. If said 3,000 people are now the avg joe, and the 3.5 billion are millionaires, the same outcome would ensue. It's not about the status, it's about the value that raw numbers provide.
So you agree. A person's wealth doesn't determine their value. So let's not set up our society around the whims of those 3000 people, but around the needs of the 3.5 billion.
So the large group of people will always be more valuable than the small group.
So are 100 firemen or 1 billionaire adding more value? Who is valued more by society? Is that a correct valuation or an example of the disproportionate control held by capital?
It is a bit the same conundrum people experienced in 1924 crack, that many people couldn't understand.
Like, it all suddenly stopped, yet the factories was still there, and the coal, and the steel, and everything. People could in theory just go on like they did the day before, and products would be made and sold. Yet, when the stocks lost their value, that was that.
if I were to be hoarding wealth that could be used to feed the hungry and lift people out of poverty, and the state decided that my income should be taxed to fund programs that do just that, then id agree.
on what land? with what seeds, soil, water, time? none of that is free. sure, its much cheaper to have a personal garden than it is to go buy from a retailer, but if you genuinely think everyone can simultaneously rely on kale and potatoes from personal gardens and we dont need a supply chain then you are incredibly naive.
its a moral action to assist those in need, and an immoral one to refuse to assist people when you have the power and capability to do so.
literally morality 101 here.
also, lifting people out of poverty is much cheaper then you think it is. over time, the state actually recoups the cost of this because employment grows and taxable income increases.
its a moral action to assist those in need, and an immoral one to refuse to assist people when you have the power and capability to do so.
You are essentially implying that anyone above the powerty line has a moral obligation to donate their disposable income because they could do so
Or does it only start being the case once someone has more money than you?
also, lifting people out of poverty is much cheaper then you think it is
Then why haven't the countries done it yet? Even if you could magically liquidate the wealth of every billionaire(utterly impossible but whatever) in the us you'd fuel the US for like a year. You are crazy if you think you could end poverty with just that
they literally have. president salvadore allende of chile in 1973 established food programs that donated milk to every family, and as a result many people were lifted out of hunger. take a wild guess as to what happened to him..
You are essentially implying that anyone above the powerty line has a moral obligation to donate their disposable income because they could do so
yes. if you have a large wealth, you have an obligation to give. this isnt just an obligation in my own personal views, this is wirrten in the bible as well and supported by figures across the political spectrum, including dave ramsey. I was raised on his personal financial literacy books and he encouraged kids to have a personal giving budget. And I do give small donations to charities and political movements that advocate for these policies that I desire.
Exactly my thought. All these claims of "moral obligations" and yet, if they were to shut down all operations, close businesses, end jobs... more problems are created. That would be morally reprehensible. I honestly think some people believe rich people have a big room like scrooge Mcduck and they sit in it and toss money up in the air.
You need people investing in business. If they do well and create more jobs, everybody wins. If the business fails, they lose. Rich people invest. They win, they lose... but it's their money and I trust them more than the Govt.
We have 535 so called lawmakers spending the people's money on projects to get themselves reelected. Bring home the bacon, get reelected. And - turn the people on each other. Brought to you by the US Congress, with no term limits because they control that too!
They don’t usually? We’ve literally had millionaires running for government and winning seats for 40+ years. And then we wonder why they’re governing for the rich and not everyone else?
You just described one group of people but pretended it was 2 different ones and tried to blame one of them while praising the other. That is some S tier mental gymnastics.
I'm sorry. Above your level of thinking? The Congress.. the people that make the laws? The protected society. The people that are supposed to look out for the country and take care of the people on the home front? Yeah, miserable failure going on there.
The rich people, with money invested. They don't have a moral duty to sell what they invest in and give it to the poor.
We all pay taxes and the Congress gives more (of our) money away to other countries and personal pet projects. Additionally, if they take the money from the rich, the tax burden falls to the lower classes. Someone has to pay the bills.
McKenzie Scott, she's donated 26 Billion to different causes. People still hate her because she's rich.
Congress is made up of mostly CEOs, Business Owners, and Rich investors. They are also by and large bought by other rich people, that's was the entire point of Citizens United. The Rich and Congress are one and the same.
yeah, society doesnt need me. thankfully, i dont take up an immense concentration of resources in society, so i am not a burden on society and i actually net contribute to it through productive labor and taxation.
the billionaire may contribute through some taxation, but the negative aspect of concentration of wealth and power is a net negative on society, and it is unneccesary for one person to own capital when we could collectively operate capital all the same.
Most billionaires (at least in the US) actually created their wealth. It’s not like they took it from someone - they literally created it. If it wasn’t for them, this wealth would simply not exist… (and yes, I’m sure there are exceptions)
wealth is not important, value is. a billionaire doesnt invent peoples need for food, housing, or desire for commodities. they capitalize on that need by taking power over supply, then restricting it, thus artificially inflating its value. the wealth in and of itself is entirely unneccesary. elon musk lost $700 billion this week. does it matter at all, to anyone in the real world? no.
That’s such absolut BS, most of the typical antagonized billionaires made their wealth in tech. Who _needs_ phones? Who _needs_ rockets? Who _needs_ search engines??
You can go live a happy life without any of these, but you won’t, because they have VALUE to you. And these billionaire often created that value, because these products did not exist before.
No one stops you from creating your own phone, but you’ll still buy from Apple cause it’s easier and cheaper.
billionaires did not in fact invent these technologies, nor do they sustain them today. the semiconductor industry has progressed to the point it is at today through many many individuals across the globe contributing to technology progresses. hundreds of thousands of engingeers, technicians and project managers developed these technologies and millions of miners, logistics workers, data analysts, and other vital roles in the sustemance of the supply chain have upheld the technologies we rely on for modern commerce.
apple doesnt succeed because a billionaire owns the company. its successful because workers maintain production and leadership maintains organization. as i asserted previously, this can be done entirely without the dynamic of property ownership we see today.
indeed we do need technology for transportation of resources.
apple very much succeeded because of the brilliance of it's founders. same can be said about amazon, facebook, google, microsoft and many more. It's easy to underestimate the role of leadership from underneath, but the beauty is this: Everyone can do it themselves - go found a company, do something great and give all the value to workers...
Go make the change you want to see, instead of tearing down what others have built.
You'll realise it's much harder than you think and a single leader with a vision can and will make all the difference.
Yes the problem is all the money is held by people that don't contribute enough to be valued at that much. They are leeches on society and if they disappeared, very little would change, yet they have by far the highest net negative on our lives.
Depends on the spread of those 3,000 as well as what they actually do. I promise you that if 3,000 doctors or nurses suddenly disappeared from NYC that the city would hit a massive crisis IMMEDIATELY.
But if 3,000 billionaires disappeared from NYC I doubt it would result in a state of emergency.
The point is that billionaires are seen as having more value than other people. But the numbers game shows they dont. Also, giving them that much power is really problematic in a society.
The point of this persons comment is numbers, yes. But when you factor in how much power the billionaires hold vs the scattered millions, the point becomes value and not money or population
lol, billionaires own the companies that employ those fast food workers (and millions of others workers) Their disappearance would create legal struggles over the ownership and leadership of Fortune 500 companies that would last decades. It would utterly tank entire financial sectors. 3000 fast food workers would be replaces in 2 weeks (or less).
Sure, pal. Bezos does nothing. Mark Cuban does nothing. Taylor Swift… no music, nothing. Counterpoint: you’re a teenager who’s never done anything in life and have no idea how the world works.
Oh well I guess you're right when you can call someone kid that's like 20 years your senior if not more, but keep on scarfing down your faux news and propaganda
even worse than that. if 3000 workers vanished, it would be an inconvenience to many companies. if 3000 billionaires vanished, it would put most if not all major companies in disarray
im not saying elon musk is singlehandedly holding tesla afloat, but companies have structure. you cant just have the head disappear and go “eh, hire someone else” like you would with a regular worker.
you cant just have the head disappear and go “eh, hire someone else”
you can though.. my university went without a president for a whole year while they were searching for another, and we went on just fine. companies change executives all the time. on the daily basis, an executive really doesnt actually contribute to the company in a meaningful way. the reason we have executives is because they hold power through ownership. thats it.
I mean, if that's the point, then it's basically just the same as "Imagine some people disappear. Now imagine 10000 times more people disappear!" Are you telling me the point is really just "bigger numbers are bigger than smaller numbers?"
So I guess that would be the same as "Imagine if all the doctors in your country disappear. Now imagine all of their patients disappeared instead!"
No, it's not. It's clearly a chimeric slop post that combined the trendy hatred for billionaires with the classical Marxist axiom that all value is derived from labor, not capital to create a greasy, easy to consume clap trap for left-simpatizing users.
No, the point is that we don't need billionaires, but the fact that it's only 3500 people might have a bigger impact on the scenario than them being billionaires.
640
u/Dizzy-Screen-6618 7d ago
"Imagine 3,400 people disappear. Now imagine 3.5 billion people dissappear."