He could. So could everyone within their own means. What I'm against is the tendency to criminalize him for not doing so.
Wealth & Income Inequality
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
He could. So could everyone within their own means. What I'm against is the tendency to criminalize him for not doing so.
And somehow that makes wealth finite? What are you arguing here?
My bar could be higher
And yes, there’s always a degree of hypocrisy when you are advocating for social/economical change. I’m still eating meat, for instance, while I can be a vegan, but then I again I don’t find spending on A5 Kobe is justifiable when I can make do with the cheap cut I get off work (the hospitality industry, btw, is also an enormously wasteful one).
So what’s your point?
The current system weighs heavily in favor of the wealthy and powerful, and they have a disproportionate influence on getting laws to work in their favor in contrast with the popular will, we know that, water is wet. However, maybe, just maybe, if we can prevent the concentration of wealth on a ruling class, the government would actually carry out what the people want, since no one can stand to privately benefit off the misery of others?
The point is pretty clear. You contributing more doesn't have a tangible effect on the issues you seek to remedy when the government isn't committed to using your money as you would like it used. It would take an overwhelming majority of likeminded politicians who are specifically elected to advance your agenda to make a discernible difference.
I have no idea what you are arguing for. I have conceded that me refusing my inheritance for personal use has no bearing on the grand scheme of thing, but it is very much a tangible improvement in the life of people who can use that wealth better than I do. It’s wholly unconnected from the issue raised originally in this thread. And in case you haven’t noticed, I’m not a fan of capitalism, nor US democracy.
Kind of thing is always hard to find out, but over 90% is fair guess of how much is Amazon stock. Maybe over 95%. So irony if that if he were to lead the company to ruin, he wouldn't feature in the top thousand.
That the worker wouldn’t have to piss in the bottle if the working conditions are not made so to make Bezos his billions?
And the term you are looking at here is resource, and it’s finite.
Well, nobody is forcing him to work there, right?
And ground level employee underpayment is common across countries/industries and has little to no relevance on whether the owner is rich or not.
I hate this kind of reasoning because you're sort of diminishing the problems these people might have. They might not have other viable work options next to Amazon. There's still lots of very poor people in the US who can't switch jobs just like that.
Bezos takes a $1.7m annual salary iirc . He sold about 40m shares of Amazon in the late 90s when it was worth very little (~50/share) so that is likely the bulk of his current non-stock wealth, which is probably about $2 billion (imo).
All of this is spot on. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome as this notion that anything that is not unrestrained market fanaticism is "communism". Since I studied behavioral economics, number 3 there is the most important for me as its very clear that is a massive problem and a great place to start with pragmatic reforms. Its important that people understand how the "profit motive" can screw up certain societal incentives.
Bascially with healthcare, prisons, education, military and a few more sub-sectors, the profit motive creates incentives that go directly against what would be most beneficial for society. Anywhere where an institution has an important purpose to fill for society, introducing for-profit companies into the mix inevitably creates incentive problems where what is most profitable for the company is not usually what is in the best interests for the citizens.
It's as if the system is tailored made so that the majority of people are forced into jobs with horrible working conditions out of necessities.
People still have to jump through hoops in a 1st world country with relatively high social safety net like Australia to claim benefits, but sure, very easy to up and leave a job that’s your meal ticket.
How is wealth not finite? Surely you can’t just create money out of nowhere?
I don't get it. He gives an example of worker suffering. I know so many people who'd gladly give up their current job to work for Amazon. And they are not really rich people.
It's just a random example which serve to prove no point.
Indeed. We can also take examples of Wal-Mart in small towns where the town has a very finite amount of disposable income to spend so Wal-Mart setting up shop in the town with their tax breaks and other benefits is directly taking wealth out of the pocket of the local businesses they put out of business.
I can list dozens and dozens more examples of wealth being finite as well.
finally some sense, they should borrow a few hundred thousands dollars from their parents and set up their own business if they don't want to be poor
If it is finite, what is the amount of total wealth available?
I just googled and this seems a good article for a glace.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/object...wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#7c1a232f7a2c
Interesting points being made.
the ayn rand centre
Your comment about you knowing many people who'd gladly work for Amazon doesn't disprove my statement though.
How does one bring wealth into existence if no one has any money to buy the product? You cant sell to people that need food banks to survive. The idea that the pie grows is fine, but ignores the fact that the share of the pie also grows. Hence, the rich getting richer at a far greater rate than the poor.
the ayn rand centre
It was more for the pie analogy, I posted it for. The only point I was making is that the example given was incorrect and should not used as a logical reason to prove the Infiniteboredom's point.
the pie is around 280 trillion at the moment and rich people get bigger and bigger slices while the poor get smaller and smaller slices, redistribute the pie
Can you explain that using Bitcoin as an example....It went from being worth cents to thousands of dollars, how? If wealth is finite and we only have a fixed amount to move around...where did Bitcoin get it's value from?
How is it incorrect? So because people are stuck in even shittier jobs than the one the worker in the example was in somehow makes the conflict between his suffering and the wealth Bezos stand to benefit from it nonexistent?
Only the Amish are allowed to suggest changes to capitalism. They're not allowed to complain about Amishnes though.
And what was the pie some years before? Or will be some years down? It iit variable...then it's not finite.
how many people were alive last year, and a thousand years ago, and some time in the future, if it's variable it's not finite
infinite humans incoming
check mate nerds
You are trying to say that Bezos is rich because the worker is poor. It is incorrect as this doesn't even apply to all of Amazon's employees, far less to be discussed on a wider scale.
I dunno myself, probably a fair bit of it. Although he'll still have plenty of riches of his own, and he should be using his influence in Amazon to ensure better conditions and/or pay for those working for him since he can certainly afford it.
Think we both agree. Since the factors underlying are variable, wealth is a variable term too.
he is as rich as he is because he exploits the people who actually do the work that makes money, he would be less rich if he didn't have such a sociopathic attitude toward his employees, bus since he does, the government should step in and not allow him to have such a sociopathic attitude toward his employees
In capitalistic terms, a rich owner will benefit more from a poorer workforce (generally speaking) when it comes to immediate financial gain because it involves less expenditure for his business. Not saying it necessarily applies to Bezos, although I'm sure it does at least partially considering the conditions plenty of his workers experience, and it's a general condition of capitalism as well.
No, I said he’s disproportionately rich because he and his company drove their employees to extremes in order to profit off it.
The worker taking a 5 minutes toilet break off the line will reduce his and his shareholders wealth by 0.0000000000000000001%, but oh noes we can’t have that, the humanity!
we don't agree, you're being fecking thick, humans aren't infinite
i had two apples yesterday, i bought some more apples today and now have 8 apples
proof that apples are infinite
fecks sake
proof that apples are infinite
fecks sake
Think that applies to everyone. The store around the corner will be as likely to do it as much as anyone else.
Agree. I'm just struggling to see how he's using that as a example for this argument.
The same place a £1 coin with a misprinted queens head gets its worth, demand. Something is worth what we will pay for it, if we cant pay for it its not worth anything. Bitcoin is and was worth only as much as someone was willing to pay for it. Take away the demand and it has no value. Take away the ability to pay for it, and again, it has no value. Iphones, ipads, bitcoins, man utd football shirts all rely on the ability of customers to buy it. You can still say product X is worth Y amount, but without a market you might as well just slap a not for sale sticker on it.
Ah, so wealth is directly proportional to population?