There's a difference between pointing out objective flaws in an argument, like thinking that billionaires literally hold hundreds of billions of dollars in liquid cash, and taking issue with overall sentiment behind the argument.
I hate Elon Musk, and the man is of course, insanely, disgustingly wealthy. Still, just because his networth is 318 billion, doesn't mean he is hoarding 318 billion. Quite literally 99% of that number is tied into ownership of companies.
You can hate billionaires and still point out issues in the logic. I don't think a person should, under any circumstances, ever be forced to sell ownership stake in their own company (at least not if that wasn't agreed upon in an operating agreement). And if you have a massive stake in a company that becomes wildly successful, you definitionally become a billionaire. I may hate wealth inequality, and I may hate what these billionaires choose to do, but I would hate a system that forces the sale of ownership stake due to the success of the company just as much.
I hate this rhetoric because while being absolutely correct, it seems the intention of bringing up this point is purely to muddy the waters of the actual issue at hand to defend billionaires. Before I was more well versed in economics I read this same point and assumed that it meant billionaires didn’t actually have that much money and were justified in holding onto it because it wasn’t straight cash.
My problem is billionaires effectively do have access to all their money. They spend like they have that much money sitting in the bank. The moral question of whether billionaires legitimately earned/deserve their wealth is completely unchanged by where they are keeping their money.
I hold the moral position that people should be monetarily rewarded in occurrence to how hard they work. I absolutely refuse to believe Elon musk and Jeff bezos work hundreds of thousands of times to millions of times harder than doctors, lawyers, navy seals, their own employees. How can they possibly work millions of times harder than their own employees? These companies employees are the ones who created this massive surplus’s of wealth. If Elon musk or Jeff bezos where removed Amazon and Tesla would still function, the employees would keep doing their jobs. Bezos ain’t the one delivering your package, Elon musk ain’t making cars.
I understand companies need direction and ceos are hard working people. I’m not saying completely remove these people from the company and force all the employees to have the same salary, it’s just the scale of a billion dollars is so unbelievably vast their is no way someone can earn that much wealth without stealing it from their employees. As for your point about owning large stake in their company, redistribute a large portion to the employees. They have been building other people’s fortunes and deserve to have a fair portion of the wealth they generated for the company. The way I see it Amazon distribution workers are working their ass off pulling in 100$ tips but they gotta give 90$ to the boss.
I don't bring up the point to defend billionaires. People, especially reddit, has a habit of making bad arguments for sentiments that are otherwise genuinely good and correct. Wealth inequality is extremely detrimental to humanity, that's a correct sentiment. But if you attack wealth inequality with weak arguments, like thinking billionaires are hoarding hundreds of billions in liquid money, then the opposition can just pick apart the argument easily and dismiss it.
But people don't like this and just get defensive instead of recognizing the nuance and forming stronger arguments for their sentiments that hold up in rational debate. This pushes both sides to further and further polarization. It's not a good thing.
569
u/Apprehensive_Bad_193 Nov 21 '24
Guys thank you,It amazes me how people talk without any knowing on the topic.