Do billionaires deserve their money?

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

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

ohhh you mean the next generation of billionaires

High wealth inequality has a negative impact on economic growth

viewtopic.php?p=39793718#p39793718

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

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.

Even so, there would be losses.

[Imperial Haiti]

In my opinion it does depend on how they have earned their money. That is, in the case of Bill Gates or Richard Branson, yes. In the case of Amancio Ortega, no.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

In my opinion it does depend on how they have earned their money. That is, in the case of Bill Gates or Richard Branson, yes. In the case of Amancio Ortega, no.

Truth.

[Striagro Uspil]

I would like to make a case as to why Billionaires indeed earned their billions. I don't think the average person understands how hard CEOs actually work. One’s perception of a CEO might be a fat cat sitting in an office smoking a cigar watching the money roll in but that's not a person: that's the monopoly man.

A CEO is a CEO because they've worked for 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes.

A CEO is a CEO because they get up and work at 3:00 a.m. when their overseas client calls them at demanding a fix to a problem that's about to cost the company a hundred million dollars and if the CEO doesn't fix it right now there are many younger hungrier competitors that are willing to snap that contract up and make a fortune for themselves.

CEOs are CEOs because they consist of largely hyper productive people who are incapable of taking breaks and they are an extreme minority of cases in the human condition. Most women AND most men are not these people, these people are the 1% not just in terms of their assets but in terms of how rare they are personality-wise.

You might wonder “Why should anyone have a billion dollars when there is so much suffering in the world?” I would argue because the billionaire likely earned it by working harder than all of their employees. That’s especially true in the beginning stages of businesses with CEOs who didn’t start with any meaningful safety net if they failed, as the CEO takes all the responsibility and assumes all of the financial, social, and mental risks if the business goes under. (Not to say that people, specifically CEOs, are entitled to anything, unless it is the consequences of their actions.)

Side-note but if society removes the extreme rewards CEOs get from extreme work then who's going to do the work? Please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what happens in a socialist country, the productive class gets wiped out because there's no longer any reason to be productive, to work beyond your means and the economy grinds to a halt.

To add on to my side point, I should mention how the left desires rights in society and the right desires responsibility in society. Obviously, the proper balance of rights and responsibilities lies somewhere in between both extremes. If things are too right-leaning then it's all responsibility and no rights, a fascist state. If things are too left-leaning then it's all rights and no responsibility and society naturally breaks down because there are more people owed more things through the virtue of their rights then there are people responsible to go out into the world and actually procure those things that are owed.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

I would like to make a case as to why Billionaires indeed earned their billions. I don't think the average person understands how hard CEOs actually work. One’s perception of a CEO might be a fat cat sitting in an office smoking a cigar watching the money roll in but that's not a person: that's the monopoly man.

A CEO is a CEO because they've worked for 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes.

A CEO is a CEO because they get up and work at 3:00 a.m. when their overseas client calls them at demanding a fix to a problem that's about to cost the company a hundred million dollars and if the CEO doesn't fix it right now there are many younger hungrier competitors that are willing to snap that contract up and make a fortune for themselves.

CEOs are CEOs because they consist of largely hyper productive people who are incapable of taking breaks and they are an extreme minority of cases in the human condition. Most women AND most men are not these people, these people are the 1% not just in terms of their assets but in terms of how rare they are personality-wise.

You might wonder “Why should anyone have a billion dollars when there is so much suffering in the world?” I would argue because the billionaire likely earned it by working harder than all of their employees. That’s especially true in the beginning stages of businesses with CEOs who didn’t start with any meaningful safety net if they failed, as the CEO takes all the responsibility and assumes all of the financial, social, and mental risks if the business goes under. (Not to say that people, specifically CEOs, are entitled to anything, unless it is the consequences of their actions.)

Side-note but if society removes the extreme rewards CEOs get from extreme work then who's going to do the work? Please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what happens in a socialist country, the productive class gets wiped out because there's no longer any reason to be productive, to work beyond your means and the economy grinds to a halt.

To add on to my side point, I should mention how the left desires rights in society and the right desires responsibility in society. Obviously, the proper balance of rights and responsibilities lies somewhere in between both extremes. If things are too right-leaning then it's all responsibility and no rights, a fascist state. If things are too left-leaning then it's all rights and no responsibility and society naturally breaks down because there are more people owed more things through the virtue of their rights then there are people responsible to go out into the world and actually procure those things that are owed.

Said everything!
I liked your observation, and I agree with all the points here.
I think people like that are lacking in some topics.

[Malacanos]

In my opinion it does depend on how they have earned their money. That is, in the case of Bill Gates or Richard Branson, yes. In the case of Amancio Ortega, no.

Who is Amancio Ortega? Also, Bill Gates is not the benevolent philanthropist that you seem to believe and I once believed.

[Striagro Uspil]

Said everything!
I liked your observation, and I agree with all the points here.
I think people like that are lacking in some topics.

Thank you but most of these points aren't even mine (even tho I also agree with all of them), I get them from a YouTuber called ShortFatOtaku, he's a centrist Canadian that comments on the good and bad of both sides (tho he talks more about the bad of the left since they are more mainstream that the right rn)

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Said everything!
I liked your observation, and I agree with all the points here.
I think people like that are lacking in some topics.

Thank you but most of these points aren't even mine (even tho I also agree with all of them), I get them from a YouTuber called ShortFatOtaku, he's a centrist Canadian that comments on the good and bad of both sides (tho he talks more about the bad of the left since they are more mainstream that the right rn)

Okay, I'll take a look. Just one question:
Does the channel have subtitles enabled? Or an unofficial channel that does dubbing?

[Striagro Uspil]

Does the channel have subtitles enabled? Or an unofficial channel that does dubbing?

The channel has subtitles but they are auto-generated, so they might not be accurate sometimes, and im not sure about the dubbing

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Does the channel have subtitles enabled? Or an unofficial channel that does dubbing?

The channel has subtitles but they are auto-generated, so they might not be accurate sometimes, and im not sure about the dubbing

Okay, I'll take a look at the channel. Thanks!

[Imperial Haiti]

In my opinion it does depend on how they have earned their money. That is, in the case of Bill Gates or Richard Branson, yes. In the case of Amancio Ortega, no.

Who is Amancio Ortega? Also, Bill Gates is not the benevolent philanthropist that you seem to believe and I once believed.

Ever heard about Zara clothing? He basically exploits people in Bangladesh.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Who is Amancio Ortega? Also, Bill Gates is not the benevolent philanthropist that you seem to believe and I once believed.

Ever heard about Zara clothing? He basically exploits people in Bangladesh.

The same Zara who, an employee discriminated against a delegate, because she was black.
That was here in Brazil.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

Ever heard about Zara clothing? He basically exploits people in Bangladesh.

The same Zara who, an employee discriminated against a delegate, because she was black.
That was here in Brazil.

If I'm not mistaken, this employee was the manager of the place.

[Malacanos]

Who is Amancio Ortega? Also, Bill Gates is not the benevolent philanthropist that you seem to believe and I once believed.

Ever heard about Zara clothing? He basically exploits people in Bangladesh.

Never heard of it, but then I avoid the fashion world like the plague.

[Kaskalma]

Ah yes, another communist thread.

[USS Monitor]

I would like to make a case as to why Billionaires indeed earned their billions. I don't think the average person understands how hard CEOs actually work. One’s perception of a CEO might be a fat cat sitting in an office smoking a cigar watching the money roll in but that's not a person: that's the monopoly man.

A CEO is a CEO because they've worked for 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes.

A CEO is a CEO because they get up and work at 3:00 a.m. when their overseas client calls them at demanding a fix to a problem that's about to cost the company a hundred million dollars and if the CEO doesn't fix it right now there are many younger hungrier competitors that are willing to snap that contract up and make a fortune for themselves.

CEOs are CEOs because they consist of largely hyper productive people who are incapable of taking breaks and they are an extreme minority of cases in the human condition. Most women AND most men are not these people, these people are the 1% not just in terms of their assets but in terms of how rare they are personality-wise.

You might wonder “Why should anyone have a billion dollars when there is so much suffering in the world?” I would argue because the billionaire likely earned it by working harder than all of their employees. That’s especially true in the beginning stages of businesses with CEOs who didn’t start with any meaningful safety net if they failed, as the CEO takes all the responsibility and assumes all of the financial, social, and mental risks if the business goes under. (Not to say that people, specifically CEOs, are entitled to anything, unless it is the consequences of their actions.)

Side-note but if society removes the extreme rewards CEOs get from extreme work then who's going to do the work? Please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what happens in a socialist country, the productive class gets wiped out because there's no longer any reason to be productive, to work beyond your means and the economy grinds to a halt.

To add on to my side point, I should mention how the left desires rights in society and the right desires responsibility in society. Obviously, the proper balance of rights and responsibilities lies somewhere in between both extremes. If things are too right-leaning then it's all responsibility and no rights, a fascist state. If things are too left-leaning then it's all rights and no responsibility and society naturally breaks down because there are more people owed more things through the virtue of their rights then there are people responsible to go out into the world and actually procure those things that are owed.

This is a great argument to explain why some people deserve to be millionaires, with an "m." Lots of people become millionaires by prioritizing their career and pushing themselves that little extra bit.

But it breaks down when you start looking at billionaires. No matter how hard anyone pushes themselves, they are still only one person, there are only so many hours in the day, and there is only so much work that they can personally do. Even if they work harder than other people, there is still a limit to how much one person can work, and that means there is an upper limit to what one person can rightly "earn" or "deserve."

There's also an upper limit to how much one person can effectively use to improve their quality of life. Above that threshold, you can spend more money, but you're probably just buying things that you don't even use. If you buy lots of houses, how much time are you actually going to spend in each one? If you collect cars, how often do you actually drive all of them? At some point, the money is no longer a reward for hard work and it does not improve your quality of life -- it is just numbers on the screen, and it is not doing anything except sit in your brokerage account.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

I would like to make a case as to why Billionaires indeed earned their billions. I don't think the average person understands how hard CEOs actually work. One’s perception of a CEO might be a fat cat sitting in an office smoking a cigar watching the money roll in but that's not a person: that's the monopoly man.

A CEO is a CEO because they've worked for 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes.

A CEO is a CEO because they get up and work at 3:00 a.m. when their overseas client calls them at demanding a fix to a problem that's about to cost the company a hundred million dollars and if the CEO doesn't fix it right now there are many younger hungrier competitors that are willing to snap that contract up and make a fortune for themselves.

CEOs are CEOs because they consist of largely hyper productive people who are incapable of taking breaks and they are an extreme minority of cases in the human condition. Most women AND most men are not these people, these people are the 1% not just in terms of their assets but in terms of how rare they are personality-wise.

You might wonder “Why should anyone have a billion dollars when there is so much suffering in the world?” I would argue because the billionaire likely earned it by working harder than all of their employees. That’s especially true in the beginning stages of businesses with CEOs who didn’t start with any meaningful safety net if they failed, as the CEO takes all the responsibility and assumes all of the financial, social, and mental risks if the business goes under. (Not to say that people, specifically CEOs, are entitled to anything, unless it is the consequences of their actions.)

Side-note but if society removes the extreme rewards CEOs get from extreme work then who's going to do the work? Please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what happens in a socialist country, the productive class gets wiped out because there's no longer any reason to be productive, to work beyond your means and the economy grinds to a halt.

To add on to my side point, I should mention how the left desires rights in society and the right desires responsibility in society. Obviously, the proper balance of rights and responsibilities lies somewhere in between both extremes. If things are too right-leaning then it's all responsibility and no rights, a fascist state. If things are too left-leaning then it's all rights and no responsibility and society naturally breaks down because there are more people owed more things through the virtue of their rights then there are people responsible to go out into the world and actually procure those things that are owed.

This is a great argument to explain why some people deserve to be millionaires, with an "m." Lots of people become millionaires by prioritizing their career and pushing themselves that little extra bit.

But it breaks down when you start looking at billionaires. No matter how hard anyone pushes themselves, they are still only one person, there are only so many hours in the day, and there is only so much work that they can personally do. Even if they work harder than other people, there is still a limit to how much one person can work, and that means there is an upper limit to what one person can rightly "earn" or "deserve."

There's also an upper limit to how much one person can effectively use to improve their quality of life. Above that threshold, you can spend more money, but you're probably just buying things that you don't even use. If you buy lots of houses, how much time are you actually going to spend in each one? If you collect cars, how often do you actually drive all of them? At some point, the money is no longer a reward for hard work and it does not improve your quality of life -- it is just numbers on the screen, and it is not doing anything except sit in your brokerage account.

True, I see so many rich with their almost infinite collections of luxury automobiles. There are X number of people going hungry in the world.
But there are people who had not-so-good pasts and who struggled to have what they have today.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I would like to make a case as to why Billionaires indeed earned their billions. I don't think the average person understands how hard CEOs actually work. One’s perception of a CEO might be a fat cat sitting in an office smoking a cigar watching the money roll in but that's not a person: that's the monopoly man.

A CEO is a CEO because they've worked for 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes.

I know people who've worked 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes, even filed taxes for people like that. They're the people trying to feed their families for almost no wages. The vast majority of CEOs had fairly wealthy parents who gave them money (Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, et cetera). A lot of them just inherited the position (Walton family, etc). The remaining people didn't work any harder than those trying to feed their families, they got very lucky.

A CEO is a CEO because they get up and work at 3:00 a.m. when their overseas client calls them at demanding a fix to a problem that's about to cost the company a hundred million dollars and if the CEO doesn't fix it right now there are many younger hungrier competitors that are willing to snap that contract up and make a fortune for themselves.

They have other executives to coordinate those things. Many companies with billionaire CEOs have monopolies as well. Billionaires get to hang out in mansions and on mega yachts.

CEOs are CEOs because they consist of largely hyper productive people who are incapable of taking breaks and they are an extreme minority of cases in the human condition. Most women AND most men are not these people, these people are the 1% not just in terms of their assets but in terms of how rare they are personality-wise.

You shouldn't have any trouble proving they work harder than everyone else, then.

You might wonder “Why should anyone have a billion dollars when there is so much suffering in the world?” I would argue because the billionaire likely earned it by working harder than all of their employees.

Even assuming that was true, they couldn't possibly be working billions of times harder than employees. It's working people who are collectively putting in the labor that generates those billions of dollars.

That’s especially true in the beginning stages of businesses with CEOs who didn’t start with any meaningful safety net if they failed,

rich parents

as the CEO takes all the responsibility and assumes all of the financial, social, and mental risks if the business goes under. (Not to say that people, specifically CEOs, are entitled to anything, unless it is the consequences of their actions.)

Wanna hear about a mental and financial struggle? Try living on the American minimum wage. It sucks.

Side-note but if society removes the extreme rewards CEOs get from extreme work then who's going to do the work?

Same people who always do the work: workers.

Please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what happens in a socialist country, the productive class gets wiped out because there's no longer any reason to be productive, to work beyond your means and the economy grinds to a halt.

You're wrong. Many "socialist" countries were absolutely mismanaged, but people never stopped working. One of the ideas behind socialism is that maybe working people deserve the value of their labor.

To add on to my side point, I should mention how the left desires rights in society and the right desires responsibility in society. Obviously, the proper balance of rights and responsibilities lies somewhere in between both extremes.

The continuation of the unsustainable status quo?

If things are too right-leaning then it's all responsibility and no rights, a fascist state. If things are too left-leaning then it's all rights and no responsibility and society naturally breaks down because there are more people owed more things through the virtue of their rights then there are people responsible to go out into the world and actually procure those things that are owed.

Leftism is about getting what you deserve. Billionaires don't deserve to be billionaires. Hell, no bosses deserve to exploit workers.

[Atlantic Federalist Republic]

I would like to make a case as to why Billionaires indeed earned their billions. I don't think the average person understands how hard CEOs actually work. One’s perception of a CEO might be a fat cat sitting in an office smoking a cigar watching the money roll in but that's not a person: that's the monopoly man.

A CEO is a CEO because they've worked for 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes.

I know people who've worked 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes, even filed taxes for people like that. They're the people trying to feed their families for almost no wages. The vast majority of CEOs had fairly wealthy parents who gave them money (Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, et cetera). A lot of them just inherited the position (Walton family, etc). The remaining people didn't work any harder than those trying to feed their families, they got very lucky.

A CEO is a CEO because they get up and work at 3:00 a.m. when their overseas client calls them at demanding a fix to a problem that's about to cost the company a hundred million dollars and if the CEO doesn't fix it right now there are many younger hungrier competitors that are willing to snap that contract up and make a fortune for themselves.

They have other executives to coordinate those things. Many companies with billionaire CEOs have monopolies as well. Billionaires get to hang out in mansions and on mega yachts.

CEOs are CEOs because they consist of largely hyper productive people who are incapable of taking breaks and they are an extreme minority of cases in the human condition. Most women AND most men are not these people, these people are the 1% not just in terms of their assets but in terms of how rare they are personality-wise.

You shouldn't have any trouble proving they work harder than everyone else, then.

You might wonder “Why should anyone have a billion dollars when there is so much suffering in the world?” I would argue because the billionaire likely earned it by working harder than all of their employees.

Even assuming that was true, they couldn't possibly be working billions of times harder than employees. It's working people who are collectively putting in the labor that generates those billions of dollars.

That’s especially true in the beginning stages of businesses with CEOs who didn’t start with any meaningful safety net if they failed,

rich parents

as the CEO takes all the responsibility and assumes all of the financial, social, and mental risks if the business goes under. (Not to say that people, specifically CEOs, are entitled to anything, unless it is the consequences of their actions.)

Wanna hear about a mental and financial struggle? Try living on the American minimum wage. It sucks.

Side-note but if society removes the extreme rewards CEOs get from extreme work then who's going to do the work?

Same people who always do the work: workers.

Please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what happens in a socialist country, the productive class gets wiped out because there's no longer any reason to be productive, to work beyond your means and the economy grinds to a halt.

You're wrong. Many "socialist" countries were absolutely mismanaged, but people never stopped working. One of the ideas behind socialism is that maybe working people deserve the value of their labor.

To add on to my side point, I should mention how the left desires rights in society and the right desires responsibility in society. Obviously, the proper balance of rights and responsibilities lies somewhere in between both extremes.

The continuation of the unsustainable status quo?

If things are too right-leaning then it's all responsibility and no rights, a fascist state. If things are too left-leaning then it's all rights and no responsibility and society naturally breaks down because there are more people owed more things through the virtue of their rights then there are people responsible to go out into the world and actually procure those things that are owed.

Leftism is about getting what you deserve. Billionaires don't deserve to be billionaires. Hell, no bosses deserve to exploit workers.

Leftism is about destroying what you deserve.
Socialism is not a friend of the workers, but an enemy of them.

[Kaskalma]

I would like to make a case as to why Billionaires indeed earned their billions. I don't think the average person understands how hard CEOs actually work. One’s perception of a CEO might be a fat cat sitting in an office smoking a cigar watching the money roll in but that's not a person: that's the monopoly man.

A CEO is a CEO because they've worked for 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes.

I know people who've worked 80 hours a week for 50 years with no brakes, even filed taxes for people like that. They're the people trying to feed their families for almost no wages. The vast majority of CEOs had fairly wealthy parents who gave them money (Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, et cetera). A lot of them just inherited the position (Walton family, etc). The remaining people didn't work any harder than those trying to feed their families, they got very lucky.

A CEO is a CEO because they get up and work at 3:00 a.m. when their overseas client calls them at demanding a fix to a problem that's about to cost the company a hundred million dollars and if the CEO doesn't fix it right now there are many younger hungrier competitors that are willing to snap that contract up and make a fortune for themselves.

They have other executives to coordinate those things. Many companies with billionaire CEOs have monopolies as well. Billionaires get to hang out in mansions and on mega yachts.

CEOs are CEOs because they consist of largely hyper productive people who are incapable of taking breaks and they are an extreme minority of cases in the human condition. Most women AND most men are not these people, these people are the 1% not just in terms of their assets but in terms of how rare they are personality-wise.

You shouldn't have any trouble proving they work harder than everyone else, then.

You might wonder “Why should anyone have a billion dollars when there is so much suffering in the world?” I would argue because the billionaire likely earned it by working harder than all of their employees.

Even assuming that was true, they couldn't possibly be working billions of times harder than employees. It's working people who are collectively putting in the labor that generates those billions of dollars.

That’s especially true in the beginning stages of businesses with CEOs who didn’t start with any meaningful safety net if they failed,

rich parents

as the CEO takes all the responsibility and assumes all of the financial, social, and mental risks if the business goes under. (Not to say that people, specifically CEOs, are entitled to anything, unless it is the consequences of their actions.)

Wanna hear about a mental and financial struggle? Try living on the American minimum wage. It sucks.

Side-note but if society removes the extreme rewards CEOs get from extreme work then who's going to do the work?

Same people who always do the work: workers.

Please correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what happens in a socialist country, the productive class gets wiped out because there's no longer any reason to be productive, to work beyond your means and the economy grinds to a halt.

You're wrong. Many "socialist" countries were absolutely mismanaged, but people never stopped working. One of the ideas behind socialism is that maybe working people deserve the value of their labor.

To add on to my side point, I should mention how the left desires rights in society and the right desires responsibility in society. Obviously, the proper balance of rights and responsibilities lies somewhere in between both extremes.

The continuation of the unsustainable status quo?

If things are too right-leaning then it's all responsibility and no rights, a fascist state. If things are too left-leaning then it's all rights and no responsibility and society naturally breaks down because there are more people owed more things through the virtue of their rights then there are people responsible to go out into the world and actually procure those things that are owed.

Leftism is about getting what you deserve. Billionaires don't deserve to be billionaires. Hell, no bosses deserve to exploit workers.

1. Many CEOs don’t have rich parents

2. Nobody lives off minimum wage. Minimum wage is for a high school student working 5 hours a day at Wendy’s. No adult is living off minimum wage.

[Umeria]

Nobody lives off minimum wage. Minimum wage is for a high school student working 5 hours a day at Wendy’s. No adult is living off minimum wage.

There are actually over 2 million people in the US who work full time and don't make enough money to survive

[Duvniask]

One of the ideas behind socialism is that maybe working people deserve the value of their labor.

"Leftists" not understanding socialism, preaching to other people and acting like they do; case in point #149,420,010,090

This shit was already debunked 140+ years ago.

[Kaskalma]

Nobody lives off minimum wage. Minimum wage is for a high school student working 5 hours a day at Wendy’s. No adult is living off minimum wage.

There are actually over 2 million people in the US who work full time and don't make enough money to survive

Still an incredibly low number, which went down from 2009 to 2018

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

There are actually over 2 million people in the US who work full time and don't make enough money to survive

Still an incredibly low number, which went down from 2009 to 2018

2 million is not a low number.

around 40 million people are in poverty in the US. if poor people had their own state, it would be the second-largest state. if they had their own country, it’d be the 37th most populous, ahead of canada. it’s going down, but that’s still a ton of people.