Do billionaires deserve their money?

[Alcala-Cordel]

It is immoral to have an extreme surplus of wealth while others suffer due to a lack of wealth. Money being nothing more than a medium for the exchange of tangible resources, like food, being a billionaire is like having a Boeing factory sized warehouse full of food while there is a famine among the working class.

This is an argument of the morality of action/inaction more so than the morality of the wealth itself.

And given how every billionaire obtains that wealth, it's absolutely a moral question.

[American Legionaries]

This is an argument of the morality of action/inaction more so than the morality of the wealth itself.

And given how every billionaire obtains that wealth, it's absolutely a moral question.

Only if you consider their method of acquisition to be morally charged.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

If all business is choked with parasites any worker owned business will immediately crush them because they have a massive competitive advantage- if you're saying you have a business model that is more efficient and results in greater satisfaction for all the people who matter don't whine that nobody's doing it just do it go forth and conquer.

you seem incapable of understanding the nuance here. a business isn't either completely ineffective or so amazing that it instantly destroys all others.

It literally is worthwhile to them if it wasn't they wouldn't do it. If their pay was suddenly cut to a penny every six years or so they'd quit because even if you feel working to survive is coercive it is a choice and the only reason anybody does it is because it is worthwhile.

if every business pays that much, then what choice is there?

[Des-Bal]

you seem incapable of understanding the nuance here. a business isn't either completely ineffective or so amazing that it instantly destroys all others.

if every business pays that much, then what choice is there?

The problem is your adding the word instantly. The point is that eventually a substantially more effective system will supplant weaker systems.

Don't work. We've established a value generated by your work that is not worthwhile meaning literally getting it isn't worth the effort. Be a hobo or hutner gatherer. Eat garbage or pigeons. Probably sucks but putting in 10 hour days for six years with the promise of a single penny at the end of the tunnel is not going to allow you to live- it is not worthwhile.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

The problem is your adding the word instantly. The point is that eventually a substantially more effective system will supplant weaker systems.

only if everyone is aware of every option and thinks logically. businesses like Amazon are established and thus have wider brand image, greater resources, and more employment opportunities. the reason worker's cooperatives haven't replaced Amazon is the same reason Bill's General Store hasn't replaced Amazon. Amazon has filled the niche and supplanting them would be virtually impossible without a major screwup by Amazon.

but this is besides the point. the main reason people support worker's cooperatives isn't because they're way more efficient or something, it's because they have better working conditions and greater worker morale. the metric of profits is valuable to some extent, but only valuing it is how we ended up with slavery. the most profitable possible system is not always the best system.

[Sordhau]

And given how every billionaire obtains that wealth, it's absolutely a moral question.

Only if you consider their method of acquisition to be morally charged.

It is absolutely immoral to force people to work for dirt pay with shitty benefits and a pittance of paid time off while you rake in billions and spend two weeks a year doing actual work and the rest of the year on the gulf course or yachting. Never mind how it's always the underpaid and overworked workers that get docked pay or fired when the company starts losing money instead of the dipshits at the top making penny-pinching decisions that cost the company money in the long run.

The upper class are parasites; they leech off society and the economy without contributing to either in any meaningless capacity. There is literally no part of a CEOs 'job' (if you can even call it that considering how little actual work is involved) that can't be done by any random worker on an assembly line.

[Washington-Columbia]

My judgment depends on how well they spend the money on.

For example, while Bill Gates has $116 Billion USD, and likely some horrible shit that I likely don't know, he helped improve vaccination efforts in Africa that helped eliminate the poliovirus, saving countless lives, along with trying to combat Covid-19, so I will give him some passes.

Jeff Bezos, while much richer, has not done much to help humanity, other than technological advancement or helping develop Seattle. And the minimum wage and the painful work conditions for Amazon Workers. I understand that it is likely to be complicated to increase the wage, but the least you could do is give proper restroom breaks.

Good way to spend it is by giving it to the poor, making green energy cheap, helping the poor, lobbying to make the country more friendly, whatever you name.
A bad way to spend it is to lobby the government for we-have-to-make-our-working-conditions-like-those-in-china shit, stealing from the poor, corruption, damaging the environment (Fuck you ExxonMobil) anything negative.

[Page]

This is an argument of the morality of action/inaction more so than the morality of the wealth itself.

And given how every billionaire obtains that wealth, it's absolutely a moral question.

Moreover, when the people of Middle Earth need the gold, it doesn't really matter how Smaug obtained his hoard anyway. He can abandon the hoard and fly away or he can get his head chopped off.

[Esternial]

Only if you consider their method of acquisition to be morally charged.

It is absolutely immoral to force people to work for dirt pay with shitty benefits and a pittance of paid time off while you rake in billions and spend two weeks a year doing actual work and the rest of the year on the gulf course or yachting. Never mind how it's always the underpaid and overworked workers that get docked pay or fired when the company starts losing money instead of the dipshits at the top making penny-pinching decisions that cost the company money in the long run.

The upper class are parasites; they leech off society and the economy without contributing to either in any meaningless capacity. There is literally no part of a CEOs 'job' (if you can even call it that considering how little actual work is involved) that can't be done by any random worker on an assembly line.

I don't think it's that easy. To me the job of a CEO sounds like a fairly stressful/annoying job, although I am making that statement based on what I've personally observed. At the company I consult at the CEO is typically the guy that gets booted out by the Board if things go bad for the company. That's a fairly sizeable pressure on one's shoulders, especially since you yourself can't put in the work to fix any issues. Something goes wrong, you can't fix it. That helplessness would give me crippling anxiety. You're entirely dependent on the people you assign to the (hopefully) right places to keep your head off the proverbial chopping block.

I do personally have a "fuck it, I'll do it myself" mentality and I have trouble delegating work to others. Maybe other people are better at that, but I would say the claim that "any worker on an assembly line" could do the work of a CEO is driven mostly by sentiment.

The you've got the mental challenges. Meeting after meeting, call after call, mail after mail. You've got to put up a smile at the right time, get mad at the right moment and present yourself "the right way" whenever required. You're "on call" almost all day every day and every decision you make must be correct one. You can have people inform you, but you're the one who makes the final call. If you fuck up, the Board will look at you.

That's my perspective on it, at least.

Not saying some (or all) CEO are not getting a disproportionate paycheck, though.

[Big Bad Blue]

Of course not. If someone tells you they got rich from hard work, ask them, "whose?" Profits are the unpaid wages of the working class.

[Saiwania]

Of course not. If someone tells you they got rich from hard work, ask them, "whose?" Profits are the unpaid wages of the working class.

How do you pay for the other costs companies have if all of the money which is made is just going to payroll?

[Terminus Station]

Of course not. If someone tells you they got rich from hard work, ask them, "whose?" Profits are the unpaid wages of the working class.

How do you pay for the other costs companies have if all of the money which is made is just going to payroll?

With the excess profits that they generate over the maximum wage.

[Ostroeuropa]

Of course not. If someone tells you they got rich from hard work, ask them, "whose?" Profits are the unpaid wages of the working class.

How do you pay for the other costs companies have if all of the money which is made is just going to payroll?

Workers vote on the proportion of profits to be re-invested. (1/5 let's say).

The company earns 200,000.
The company spends 100,000 on maintainence.
The company has 100,000 in profits.
20,000 are re-invested into the company as per the workers agreement.
80,000 is then divided amongst the workers as pay.

[Informed Consent]

Of course not. If someone tells you they got rich from hard work, ask them, "whose?" Profits are the unpaid wages of the working class.

How do you pay for the other costs companies have if all of the money which is made is just going to payroll?

Government subsidies that make corporate culture dangerously politicized.

[Neoliberal Consensus]

If they are billionaires like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and George Soros then yes because they defend our democracy from fascism and ensure that the democracies of the world are staffed by qualified experts who promote free trade, banks, vaccines, and social liberalism.

Any other billionaire is likely a racist MAGA fan or a Russian.

[Neoliberal Consensus]

How do you pay for the other costs companies have if all of the money which is made is just going to payroll?

Government subsidies that make corporate culture dangerously politicized.

Corporate culture was politicized by the universities.

[The House of Hamid]

No, of course they don't, what a preposterous idea. How can anyone deserve to be that rich while people are starving or homeless?

[Informed Consent]

Government subsidies that make corporate culture dangerously politicized.

Corporate culture was politicized by the universities.

It is a many headed hydra.

[Malacanos]

Billionaires deserve to be abolished. One could maybe deserve to be a millionaire, but no one could possibly earn a billionaire dollars or more.

[Malacanos]

Of course not. If someone tells you they got rich from hard work, ask them, "whose?" Profits are the unpaid wages of the working class.

Says the guy who votes regularly for one of the two corporate parties and dismisses anyone who speaks out against them.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Billionaires deserve to be abolished. One could maybe deserve to be a millionaire, but no one could possibly earn a billionaire dollars or more.

If Billionaires were abolished, the jobs they generate would also be abolished. And consequently, the livelihood of many people.

[Life empire]

If they are billionaires like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and George Soros then yes because they defend our democracy from fascism and ensure that the democracies of the world are staffed by qualified experts who promote free trade, banks, vaccines, and social liberalism.

Any other billionaire is likely a racist MAGA fan or a Russian.

in your second line you attempt to identify people who don't deserve it "Any other billionaire is likely a racist MAGA fan or a Russian"
however isn't saying someone doesn't deserve it because there russian racist in itself?

also, you mention "defend our democracy from fascism", fascism being "a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted." and you say in you category of people who don't deserve it "MAGA fan" maga being "make america great again" means that a "MAGA fan" is a trump supporter, which I pressume is opposition to your views, so by saying they don't deserve it sounds like you would agree with fascist policies targeting them

in conclusion your starting to sound like a racist and a fascist yourself

[Daniel-Franklin]

If they are billionaires like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and George Soros then yes because they defend our democracy from fascism and ensure that the democracies of the world are staffed by qualified experts who promote free trade, banks, vaccines, and social liberalism.

Any other billionaire is likely a racist MAGA fan or a Russian.

in your second line you attempt to identify people who don't deserve it "Any other billionaire is likely a racist MAGA fan or a Russian"
however isn't saying someone doesn't deserve it because there russian racist in itself?

also, you mention "defend our democracy from fascism", fascism being "a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted." and you say in you category of people who don't deserve it "MAGA fan" maga being "make america great again" means that a "MAGA fan" is a trump supporter, which I pressume is opposition to your views, so by saying they don't deserve it sounds like you would agree with fascist policies targeting them

in conclusion your starting to sound like a racist and a fascist yourself

Neoliberal Consensus is not being sincere and we all know it. He’s a caricature created solely for the forums.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Billionaires deserve to be abolished. One could maybe deserve to be a millionaire, but no one could possibly earn a billionaire dollars or more.

If Billionaires were abolished, the jobs they generate would also be abolished. And consequently, the livelihood of many people.

no, those jobs would be generated by other business owners.

[Life empire]

If Billionaires were abolished, the jobs they generate would also be abolished. And consequently, the livelihood of many people.

no, those jobs would be generated by other business owners.

ohhh you mean the next generation of billionaires