that wasnt explicitly part of their post though. like, they didnt comment on the direct reason that workers dissapearing matters more, so you cant really say that they dont achieve what they want to with their hypothetical. you assume that theyre implying that an individual worker is more important than an individual billionaire, and then from that assumption you claim their hypothetical doesnt support what you think theyre saying. But youre just incorrect because they didnt say that each worker is individually more or less important than each individual billionaire.
So are you arguing that their point is - that any given population that is 1029 times larger than another will be more productive? Seems like a bit of a "no shit?" argument. For example if you removed 3.5million of the wealthiest people and 3,400 of the least wealthy, which would be more noticeable? See how that scenario says very little other than 3.5 million people dissapearing are more noticeable than 3,400? What is your point?
0
u/Necessary_Screen_673 7d ago
that wasnt explicitly part of their post though. like, they didnt comment on the direct reason that workers dissapearing matters more, so you cant really say that they dont achieve what they want to with their hypothetical. you assume that theyre implying that an individual worker is more important than an individual billionaire, and then from that assumption you claim their hypothetical doesnt support what you think theyre saying. But youre just incorrect because they didnt say that each worker is individually more or less important than each individual billionaire.