Should billionaires exist? 「Yes or No」

[The Alcalan Empire]

Well that's vague. How should we prepare them? What is going with them? This is fine dining we are talking about!

Tempura.

Make sure to clean them out first, billionaires are an incredibly toxic dish

[Sanghyeok]

Tempura.

Make sure to clean them out first, billionaires are an incredibly toxic dish

Their taste is too strong to serve without dipping sauce.

[Ifreann]

Have you not been paying attention during the pandemic? The essential workers are mostly "unskilled" workers.

But that aside, think about what it means for money to be an incentive. Why is money motivating? Because we need it to live. We have to buy food and shelter and medicine, without them we will die, so we have to get money. So to say that we need the incentive of money for society to function is saying that we need to threaten people with deprivation and death in order to motivate them to work for society.

You fail to discern the difference between a critical worker and a critical job. The value of a job is determined by how much it is required by society, and menial labor is needed for our society to function, but the value of a worker is determined by supply and demand, and since just about anyone can do menial labor with little to no training, there is a huge supply. Especially now that there is a recession, the supply of available workers to hire from is larger than ever, and the demand is smaller than ever. The pandemic is also temporary, so we can function without many of the more advanced skills for a time, we can go a while without needing new skyscrapers or nuclear power plants built, but we can't go forever.

So as I said earlier, the market is stupid. It fails to reward the people who most directly allow us to live comfortable life and instead rewards people who are often ruining the world.

Money allows us to live better than we would have otherwise. It does not threaten them with death but rewards them with luxuries. You can live in a cardboard box eating only rice and beans but I don't think anyone would want to. People are really only in danger of starvation in laissez faire capitalism with no provisions for the poor or in extreme situations where food is physically not available.

People can survive without working not because capitalism provides for them, but because we provide for them in spite of capitalism, because we socialise the cost of providing for them. And even so, this is primarily targetted at those who cannot work and is designed to exclude those who simply aren't working. So if people don't work, they get nothing. No money to buy a cardboard box to live in. No money to buy rice and beans.

I doubt many people want to get that promotion so they won't starve, unless you're in some third world country, they want that promotion so they can buy a better car or remodel their house. I don't think you're being deprived if you can't afford a Ferrari, and if you feel like you are then I think your judgement of what is essential is very, very flawed. If you think that the capitalist incentivization method is flawed, then please, by all means, give me an example of a better one.

People already routinely do things to make the world a better place just for the sake of the world being a better place. We don't need to invent something new, people will do useful work just to be useful.

[HIreland]

You fail to discern the difference between a critical worker and a critical job. The value of a job is determined by how much it is required by society, and menial labor is needed for our society to function, but the value of a worker is determined by supply and demand, and since just about anyone can do menial labor with little to no training, there is a huge supply. Especially now that there is a recession, the supply of available workers to hire from is larger than ever, and the demand is smaller than ever. The pandemic is also temporary, so we can function without many of the more advanced skills for a time, we can go a while without needing new skyscrapers or nuclear power plants built, but we can't go forever.

So as I said earlier, the market is stupid. It fails to reward the people who most directly allow us to live comfortable life and instead rewards people who are often ruining the world.

Menial labor does have a more direct and immediate effect, but on a per-person basis it is far less influential than the skilled trades. One mechanic can fix the trucks of 50 truck drivers. One architect can design buildings to be built by hundreds of workers. One politician can... well there isn't really anything good for that one. Skilled trades tend to have a much greater importance than the nonskilled trades, since removing one worker will not prevent the building from being built, but removing one architect will. This however, is not the point. The market does not care about "fairness", it cares about efficiency. Workers that are in greater demand are rewarded to draw more workers into the field, and workers that are in oversupply are paid little to encourage movement into other fields. The presence of income inequality is what drives people to work so hard, because they aspire to one day have that higher pay themselves, they want to move up in the world and so work harder than any other motivation could drive them. People that have nowhere to go, and have reached the top of their possible promotions and raises often stop working so hard, as they have nowhere to go from there, and only need to put in the bare minimum effort required to keep their job. If there were no differences in pay, everyone would be in that state.

Money allows us to live better than we would have otherwise. It does not threaten them with death but rewards them with luxuries. You can live in a cardboard box eating only rice and beans but I don't think anyone would want to. People are really only in danger of starvation in laissez faire capitalism with no provisions for the poor or in extreme situations where food is physically not available.

People can survive without working not because capitalism provides for them, but because we provide for them in spite of capitalism, because we socialise the cost of providing for them. And even so, this is primarily targetted at those who cannot work and is designed to exclude those who simply aren't working. So if people don't work, they get nothing. No money to buy a cardboard box to live in. No money to buy rice and beans.

Capitalism works best with a dash of socialism to keep people fed and healthy between jobs, just like a meal is often improved by a dash of salt, but that doesn't mean you would be better off eating a barrel of salt. And of course it excludes those who simply aren't working, if you chose to contribute nothing to society, society choses to give nothing in return. Those who don't work should not eat.

I doubt many people want to get that promotion so they won't starve, unless you're in some third world country, they want that promotion so they can buy a better car or remodel their house. I don't think you're being deprived if you can't afford a Ferrari, and if you feel like you are then I think your judgement of what is essential is very, very flawed. If you think that the capitalist incentivization method is flawed, then please, by all means, give me an example of a better one.

People already routinely do things to make the world a better place just for the sake of the world being a better place. We don't need to invent something new, people will do useful work just to be useful.

It is a matter of numbers. Very few people are motivated by idealism, without a cash incentive there would not be nearly the drive forward we see in our economy. Do you want to know how I know? Because the market has to place additional cash incentives for people to become scientists and inventors, if people were willing to do it of their own volition their employers would not have to offer higher pay to get applicants. The market is self-balancing in terms of pay, excluding positions who are in charge of their own pay, or government jobs, since the government doesn't seem to care about how much money it wastes. The fact that they must offer higher pay in order to get people into those jobs shows that they would not be motivated enough on their own.

[Ifreann]

So as I said earlier, the market is stupid. It fails to reward the people who most directly allow us to live comfortable life and instead rewards people who are often ruining the world.

Menial labor does have a more direct and immediate effect, but on a per-person basis it is far less influential than the skilled trades. One mechanic can fix the trucks of 50 truck drivers. One architect can design buildings to be built by hundreds of workers. One politician can... well there isn't really anything good for that one. Skilled trades tend to have a much greater importance than the nonskilled trades, since removing one worker will not prevent the building from being built, but removing one architect will. This however, is not the point. The market does not care about "fairness", it cares about efficiency. Workers that are in greater demand are rewarded to draw more workers into the field, and workers that are in oversupply are paid little to encourage movement into other fields.

You keep making arguments for me about why the market is bad. The market gives the least to those who actually build the building, more to those who design is, and the most to the person who does nothing but have their name on the outside. And this is considered efficient, because the goal is to maximally enrich that last person.

The presence of income inequality is what drives people to work so hard, because they aspire to one day have that higher pay themselves, they want to move up in the world and so work harder than any other motivation could drive them. People that have nowhere to go, and have reached the top of their possible promotions and raises often stop working so hard, as they have nowhere to go from there, and only need to put in the bare minimum effort required to keep their job. If there were no differences in pay, everyone would be in that state.

That sounds fantastic. Can you even imagine it? A world where everyone is content, where we all do only such work as is necessary and then we just vibe. No more living with stress for so long that you forget what it was ever like to not be stressed. No more rat race.

People can survive without working not because capitalism provides for them, but because we provide for them in spite of capitalism, because we socialise the cost of providing for them. And even so, this is primarily targetted at those who cannot work and is designed to exclude those who simply aren't working. So if people don't work, they get nothing. No money to buy a cardboard box to live in. No money to buy rice and beans.

Capitalism works best with a dash of socialism to keep people fed and healthy between jobs, just like a meal is often improved by a dash of salt, but that doesn't mean you would be better off eating a barrel of salt. And of course it excludes those who simply aren't working, if you chose to contribute nothing to society, society choses to give nothing in return. Those who don't work should not eat.

Fuck that shit. We should stop trying to force everyone to work as hard as possible for as much of their life as they possibly can. It's ridiculous, we should be doing the exact opposite, we should be trying to get society to a place where the demands we place on each other are minimised and we are otherwise as free as possible to do whatever we want. When we obsolete jobs with new technology we shouldn't invent new jobs to replace them, we should share out the remaining labour among more people so we can all do less work without losing anything. If we don't need people to work then we should leave them alone, not contrive to force them to keep working anyway. If we don't learn to accept providing people with a comfortable life without demanding that they either be born to wealthy parents or they do some kind of work, any kind of work, then eventually we're going to be doing stupid shit like paying people to dig a hole for eight hours and then paying someone else to fill it back in.

People already routinely do things to make the world a better place just for the sake of the world being a better place. We don't need to invent something new, people will do useful work just to be useful.

It is a matter of numbers. Very few people are motivated by idealism, without a cash incentive there would not be nearly the drive forward we see in our economy.

Considering we've been knowingly destroying the environment for decades then I would suggest that we don't need the drive forward we see in our economy. Did you know that we grow twice as much food as is necessary to feed everyone on Earth? Do you think that's an efficient use of resources? Because it's certainly profitable.

Do you want to know how I know? Because the market has to place additional cash incentives for people to become scientists and inventors, if people were willing to do it of their own volition their employers would not have to offer higher pay to get applicants. The market is self-balancing in terms of pay, excluding positions who are in charge of their own pay, or government jobs, since the government doesn't seem to care about how much money it wastes. The fact that they must offer higher pay in order to get people into those jobs shows that they would not be motivated enough on their own.

You don't need financial incentives for people to pursue scientific research. Do you know how I know? Because we saw scientific advancements happen before there was such a thing as a career as a scientist.

[HIreland]

Menial labor does have a more direct and immediate effect, but on a per-person basis it is far less influential than the skilled trades. One mechanic can fix the trucks of 50 truck drivers. One architect can design buildings to be built by hundreds of workers. One politician can... well there isn't really anything good for that one. Skilled trades tend to have a much greater importance than the nonskilled trades, since removing one worker will not prevent the building from being built, but removing one architect will. This however, is not the point. The market does not care about "fairness", it cares about efficiency. Workers that are in greater demand are rewarded to draw more workers into the field, and workers that are in oversupply are paid little to encourage movement into other fields.

You keep making arguments for me about why the market is bad. The market gives the least to those who actually build the building, more to those who design is, and the most to the person who does nothing but have their name on the outside. And this is considered efficient, because the goal is to maximally enrich that last person.

The billionaire is just leeching off of the success of the company, although he does serve an important, if not immediately clear, function. I was speaking of the skilled trades that made the work of building the building possible, by surveying possible locations, assessing the ground to determine the depth of the foundation required for it to be safe, designing it, calculating stresses and loads, determining optimal materials and calculating expenses, ensuring the building is designed to withstand wind and earthquakes, etc. Without those people the workers would be unable to even begin construction. Even if you can't see what they do as easily as you can see the work of the workers, they are critical to the success of the project.

The presence of income inequality is what drives people to work so hard, because they aspire to one day have that higher pay themselves, they want to move up in the world and so work harder than any other motivation could drive them. People that have nowhere to go, and have reached the top of their possible promotions and raises often stop working so hard, as they have nowhere to go from there, and only need to put in the bare minimum effort required to keep their job. If there were no differences in pay, everyone would be in that state.

That sounds fantastic. Can you even imagine it? A world where everyone is content, where we all do only such work as is necessary and then we just vibe. No more living with stress for so long that you forget what it was ever like to not be stressed. No more rat race.

Capitalism works best with a dash of socialism to keep people fed and healthy between jobs, just like a meal is often improved by a dash of salt, but that doesn't mean you would be better off eating a barrel of salt. And of course it excludes those who simply aren't working, if you chose to contribute nothing to society, society choses to give nothing in return. Those who don't work should not eat.

Fuck that shit. We should stop trying to force everyone to work as hard as possible for as much of their life as they possibly can. It's ridiculous, we should be doing the exact opposite, we should be trying to get society to a place where the demands we place on each other are minimised and we are otherwise as free as possible to do whatever we want. When we obsolete jobs with new technology we shouldn't invent new jobs to replace them, we should share out the remaining labour among more people so we can all do less work without losing anything. If we don't need people to work then we should leave them alone, not contrive to force them to keep working anyway. If we don't learn to accept providing people with a comfortable life without demanding that they either be born to wealthy parents or they do some kind of work, any kind of work, then eventually we're going to be doing stupid shit like paying people to dig a hole for eight hours and then paying someone else to fill it back in.

Value is labor, things are only worth what you put in to get them, and if you didn't work to earn something, it means nothing to you. You cannot gain happiness from simply being handed things, you have to feel that you have earned them. People have a deep psychological need to prove their value to society by contributing in some way, although they may not realize this, and find themselves unhappy when they are not doing this and don't understand why. This is much of the problem behind billionaires, they are not doing anything and thus feel something is missing, which they assume is more money. A life without work is an empty life. We even invent false work to entertain ourselves, playing games that simulate doing some job or another, although made easier than it would be in real life. Psychology aside, the additional work we are doing now that we have made the production of the essentials of life so cheap is to create more and better things, which people prove are worth it because they are willing to work hard to get them. If people did not think working hard to get these things was worth it, they would not do it. We will never make it to the stars if we are too lazy to take on new jobs as old ones are filled with machines. If we simply sat around while automation did everything we would be nothing more than useless lumps of flesh, consuming food and oxygen and producing only dung in return. The animals on the factory farms would have more worth than us.

It is a matter of numbers. Very few people are motivated by idealism, without a cash incentive there would not be nearly the drive forward we see in our economy.

Considering we've been knowingly destroying the environment for decades then I would suggest that we don't need the drive forward we see in our economy. Did you know that we grow twice as much food as is necessary to feed everyone on Earth? Do you think that's an efficient use of resources? Because it's certainly profitable.

Do you want to know how I know? Because the market has to place additional cash incentives for people to become scientists and inventors, if people were willing to do it of their own volition their employers would not have to offer higher pay to get applicants. The market is self-balancing in terms of pay, excluding positions who are in charge of their own pay, or government jobs, since the government doesn't seem to care about how much money it wastes. The fact that they must offer higher pay in order to get people into those jobs shows that they would not be motivated enough on their own.

You don't need financial incentives for people to pursue scientific research. Do you know how I know? Because we saw scientific advancements happen before there was such a thing as a career as a scientist.

Sure, advancements were made when we were not actively funding science, but at a much slower pace, for the majority of human history innovation happened at a crawl, and it was only after people could be an inventor or a scientist as an occupation that we began to discover at a much faster pace, and rocketed through the industrial revolution into the space age. This idea of simply going back to the slow pace of invention of the ancient past is sharply contrasted with the need to preserve the environment, as it is not primarily greed which is destroying the environment, but our dependence on fossil fuels, as we currently lack the technology to transition away from them. As much as you might talk up solar or wind, they are not nearly enough to replace fossil fuel, and if I were in charge I would be pouring as much money into science as possible before it is too late for the environment. (and before we run out of oil, which is the bigger concern). Besides the environment, research and discovery is the greatest pursuit of mankind, and if you really don't see any value in it then you must be blind. Science may provide technological advancements as an added benefit, but science is its own reward, discovery for the sake of discovery.

[Cordel One]

Cavemen be like "I would love to improve the conditions of myself and my people but unfortunately capitalism doesn't exist yet"

[Sanghyeok]

Cavemen be like "I would love to improve the conditions of myself and my people but unfortunately capitalism doesn't exist yet"

Prehistoric civilisations refused to invent fire because there was no profit motive.

[Cordel One]

Cavemen be like "I would love to improve the conditions of myself and my people but unfortunately capitalism doesn't exist yet"

Prehistoric civilisations refused to invent fire because there was no profit motive.

Of course, why would they if they didn't have the opportunity to profit from their exploits under a hierarchial system that allowed them to exploit the rest of society. And to share that idea with others? That's just not human nature.

[Kowani]

Cavemen be like "I would love to improve the conditions of myself and my people but unfortunately capitalism doesn't exist yet"

Prehistoric civilisations refused to invent fire because there was no profit motive.

with no patent system, how could they ever expect to make a return on their investment?

[Z-man]

Cavemen be like "I would love to improve the conditions of myself and my people but unfortunately capitalism doesn't exist yet"

Prehistoric civilisations refused to invent fire because there was no profit motive.

And yet there was a profit motive: their food tasted better. Capitalism is natural and age-old. The most successful cavemen would get the most resources and ultimately be the ones to reproduce most effectively. Modern society is slowly degrading the essence of evolution, which ultimately weakens the society as a whole.

[The Yeetusa]

Prehistoric civilisations refused to invent fire because there was no profit motive.

And yet there was a profit motive: their food tasted better. Capitalism is natural and age-old. The most successful cavemen would get the most resources and ultimately be the ones to reproduce most effectively. Modern society is slowly degrading the essence of evolution, which ultimately weakens the society as a whole.

Sounds a lot like natural selection.

[Duvniask]

-snip-

What did I just say?

Labor has no intrinsic value in Marxism. For Marx, value is a social relation that need not exist, and does not exist outside the realm of commodities. Additionally, to the extent that socially necessary abstract labor is creating value, it is to the extent that goods are produced to be sold and realized as commodities on the market, i.e. it is productive labor engaged in to sell a product that satisfies whatever human need the hypothetical buyer has (that is to say, use value or utility). As Marx explains in the very first chapter of Volume I of Capital, if a thing is completely useless, then the labor expended on it is also useless and does not form a value.

What, then, do you achieve by saying "labor has no intrinsic value"? Because it is certainly not a refutation of Marx.

[The Emerald Legion]

Cavemen be like "I would love to improve the conditions of myself and my people but unfortunately capitalism doesn't exist yet"

It's almost like improving life for a caveman is easy as fuck. But improving life for a modern technological society is much harder.

It takes a single person an afternoon to make a grass hut. It takes hundreds of people months to build a skyscraper. Thousands if you include the whole supply network.

[Kowani]

Prehistoric civilisations refused to invent fire because there was no profit motive.

And yet there was a profit motive: their food tasted better. Capitalism is natural and age-old. The most successful cavemen would get the most resources and ultimately be the ones to reproduce most effectively. Modern society is slowly degrading the essence of evolution, which ultimately weakens the society as a whole.

that's not what capitalism is

[Duvniask]

And yet there was a profit motive: their food tasted better. Capitalism is natural and age-old. The most successful cavemen would get the most resources and ultimately be the ones to reproduce most effectively. Modern society is slowly degrading the essence of evolution, which ultimately weakens the society as a whole.

that's not what capitalism is

TIL capitalism is when things get better.

[Kowani]

that's not what capitalism is

TIL capitalism is when things get better.

the IMF would tell you this is so.

[The Emerald Legion]

that's not what capitalism is

TIL capitalism is when things get better.

Profit is when things get better.

[Duvniask]

TIL capitalism is when things get better.

Profit is when things get better.

Congratulations, you have made the concept of profit so nebulous it has lost any analytical usefulness it had.

[The Emerald Legion]

Profit is when things get better.

Congratulations, you have made the concept of profit so nebulous it has lost any analytical usefulness it had.

No I haven't. Stop being pedantic.

[Arcturus Novus]

Lmfao no

[Duvniask]

Congratulations, you have made the concept of profit so nebulous it has lost any analytical usefulness it had.

No I haven't. Stop being pedantic.

I took out a slice of crispy bread.

I added butter.

$$$

[Cordel One]

TIL capitalism is when things get better.

Profit is when things get better.

In that case the world would certainly profit from an absence of billionaires.

[Sanghyeok]

Profit is when things get better.

In that case the world would certainly profit from an absence of billionaires.

But how would our poor billionaires buy their 3rd private jet of the year?

[The Marlborough]

I don't have anything against billionaires existing inherently per se, however given that the overwhelming majority of the growth in wealth in the US has been for the already incredibly rich over iirc the past ~15 years or so, I cannot say I currently support the number of billionaires nor the amount of wealth they posses.

The upper middle class (ie some of the best off Americans) can at best be said to have just maintained their quality of life, with some indications that those just scraping into that category might actually be starting to be worse off. For the middle and lower classes, they have seen decreases in wealth and quality of life compared to what should have happened. Had there been growth for everyone, it wouldn't be an issue except for the most ardent of far-left wing people.

Had they also sought to maintain societal duties and obligations, it further would not be an issue but they are some of the biggest advocates for erasing such things. With power and status comes duties and responsibilities; the higher you go the more duties and responsibilities you have. It is a relationship of reciprocity for all social classes. They cannot expect those in classes further down to abide their duties and obligations when they themselves do not. They should not be surprised that people are out for them when they have sundered their duty and responsibility. Elites who do not wish to reciprocate relationships, have no desire to work for a common good but still believe that they retain a privilege to rule, through dictation, is not a just social order between peoples but a system of tyrannical master-slave and people have every right to not wish slavery upon themselves.

As a result of what has happened in regards to the current billionaire class, their wealth has been obtained immorally and unjustly. It has come at the cost of leaving the rest of society behind to wither on the vine and absconding their duties to society. Instead of a system of cooperation and harmony, they have desecrated and corrupted it into a system of soft slavery. As a result I'm not opposed to knocking the billionaires down a peg or two and redistributing some of their wealth as a punishment for their rapacity. They can choose to seek atonement for what has happened by working with the people to create a more just order or they can be obliterated should they stand in the way.