Do billionaires deserve their money?

[North Jus Intius]

I always saw it was Utopia and that's why it failed.

It is weird that we live in the world where a kid being born poor on the streets and a kid being born in a fancy mansion is more fair then a word where everyone's paycheck is the same.

a worls where everyone's paycheck is the same can only be fair if everyone outputs the same value, which is not the case, and having money because your parents earned it, what's unfair about that? it gives another motivation for parents to earn more money and therefor do more work

Value should be based on labor, not based on arbitrary numbers assigned to inanimate objects based on supply/demand logistics which are influenced by whether or not some truck driver decides they want to take a load or not, among other things in the supply chain.

The workers at taco hell work a lot harder than that truck driver, and they do more math too. Can't wait for driverless vehicles to take off.

That being said, in America, if all wealth were redistributed, literally billions of dollars would be spent on the world's largest party ever. It would have to be provided over time or something, and people would probably riot.

[Umeria]

Yes and that's a much better way to do it than via the private sector

how is that better?

When you need something in order to survive, the market sets an unreasonably high price for it. Providing it via taxes cuts out the price-gouging middleman.

[USS Monitor]

a worls where everyone's paycheck is the same can only be fair if everyone outputs the same value, which is not the case, and having money because your parents earned it, what's unfair about that? it gives another motivation for parents to earn more money and therefor do more work

Value should be based on labor, not based on arbitrary numbers assigned to inanimate objects based on supply/demand logistics which are influenced by whether or not some truck driver decides they want to take a load or not, among other things in the supply chain.

The workers at taco hell work a lot harder than that truck driver, and they do more math too. Can't wait for driverless vehicles to take off.

That being said, in America, if all wealth were redistributed, literally billions of dollars would be spent on the world's largest party ever. It would have to be provided over time or something, and people would probably riot.

You've clearly never tried being a trucker.

[Exxosia]

I think there is something to say here for what is a billion dollars.

Our monetary systems are so warped and inflated that a billion dollars does not fairly represent any sort of functional currency.

If we did not have government and corporatist involvement with a direct goods to currency value, $1 billion would be $31,046,258.90 in actual value.

Now, that said, do billionaires deserve their money? For the most part, no.

Some have simply invested and managed wealth from ancestors. Great, they did not earn it, but they deserve it. They did nothing wrong as they basically did nothing at all.

But then you have people like Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos, and so on who have caused harm. Windows is awful and has computing set back 50 years. Amazon has destroyed security and vast swaths of economies. Facebook/Meta is an engine of societal destruction. Walmart is the tip of a wasteful spear that has unleashed waste, pollution, faltering quality, and empowerment of authoritarian regimes. These people do not deserve their billions because they got to be billionaires CAUSING HARM. We'd be better off without them in the first place.

[Saiwania]

Value should be based on labor, not based on arbitrary numbers assigned to inanimate objects based on supply/demand logistics which are influenced by whether or not some truck driver decides they want to take a load or not, among other things in the supply chain.

Working hard by itself, isn't what makes the most profits. It is working smarter that usually pays off more. If you objectively can produce a better service/product that people want to buy more of than what any competition has, or if your patent is flat out better in terms of value. That is perhaps the root of your problem with how world economy works. If its indeed the case that value isn't based upon labor, then its just incorrect if labor theory of value hasn't or doesn't work in practice when people try it.

No one is really going to pay someone more money for cutting their lawn with a scythe just because it takes longer and the work is harder, compared to paying someone to cut their yard with a riding mower- if the end result is the same, only the latter method is much faster and more efficient.

Doing more in less time or doing something more valuable, that is what increases profits for a business.

[El Lazaro]

Aside from the question of whether having rich parents and/or monopolizing the market really means you “earned” that money, billionaires are just plain bad for humanity. Despite the fact that Elon Musk rightfully got rich by using money earned by his family taking advantage of Apartheid to buy other people’s ideas, I still think it would be better to end global hunger with that wealth instead of having it sit around unused.

[Sordhau]

This sort of psychotic, machiavellian mentality only validates the need for Socialism. Your ideology is the spawn of evil and I hope I live long enough to see it's inevitable doom.

Cool beans. Now win. Marxist bullshit is only good for fomenting ethnic cleansing, scoreboard baby. How you liking the internet and your consumer electronics by the way?

Our victory is inevitable. Whether it takes a hundred years or thousand or more doesn't matter; it cannot be stopped. The global capitalist system is already beginning to crumble as the centuries of plundering and exploitation that held it afloat proves to be it's undoing. You only slowed the revolution my friend; you'll never stop it. Because no matter how much you take it's never enough for you, and when you've taken everything from us all you've done is given us nothing left to lose.

Except, of course, for our chains. I hope you live to see that fateful day of reckoning. Let it be a humble experience.

[El Lazaro]

Cool beans. Now win. Marxist bullshit is only good for fomenting ethnic cleansing, scoreboard baby. How you liking the internet and your consumer electronics by the way?

Our victory is inevitable. Whether it takes a hundred years or thousand or more doesn't matter; it cannot be stopped. The global capitalist system is already beginning to crumble as the centuries of plundering and exploitation that held it afloat proves to be it's undoing. You only slowed the revolution my friend; you'll never stop it. Because no matter how much you take it's never enough for you, and when you've taken everything from us all you've done is given us nothing left to lose.

Except, of course, for our chains. I hope you live to see that fateful day of reckoning. Let it be a humble experience.

Marxist attempts at socialism are pretty underwhelming. The educated middle/upper class become the new rulers, they decide they don’t want to step down and pass on power/privilege to their children, and things slowly deteriorate as everyone gives up on actually achieving the goals of the revolution.

So, maybe you could try something new? Just putting the idea out there.

[The Very Dark Place]

Absolutely the hell not. Look, some people are more industrious than others and it doesn't take a galaxy-sized brain to come to the conclusion that they should be paid more. Take Elon Musk for example, he didn't receive a salary that made him a billionaire. He invented pay-pal, runs Tesla, and designs rockets. Very cool stuff if you ask me. But no person in their right mind would make the leap that someone like Musk should own more wealth than the entire GDP of Cuba. First of all, it's just not logical. Historically, money is given to a person based upon how much work they've done, how good they've done it, and how much profit they've made for the company. Now, Elon Musk has made some profit, I'll give him that. But has he really put in more work than a coal miner who's getting closer to death every time they enter the mines? Has he really done a better job than his own workers, or his executive staff? Secondly, his wealth (and yes ik it's his net worth by he can sell his stocks and houses) could benefit so. many. people. So many schools could be opened. So many people could be fed. So many houses could be built. And finally, Musk (and people like him) are just idiots and assholes. Remember when he exposed himself to a SpaceX flight attendant (and remember how the media gave up on that story a week later)? Remember that time when he was being very silly and built a very expensive tunnel under San Diego to stop traffic, and ended up creating more traffic? Oh, and you can't forget that time when he predicted that the U.S. was going to have “close to zero new cases (of Covid)” by the end of April 2020?

Basically, billionaires don't produce enough product nor value to society to be worth what they are, their wealth could be used for far better ventures (that goes for millionaires as well), and they just aren't as smart or cool as they're cracked up to be.

Anyway, eat the rich.

[Infected Mushroom]

It’s not deserved as of this moment.

In the 2020s, Facebook has become at best irrelevant and at worst a focus point for all things shallow, superficial and worthless. Facebook could literally disappear and aside from jobs lost, there’s no real detriment to humankind.

If I had a choice between saving my favorite pasta place from bankruptcy or all of Facebook, I’d pick the restaurant. At least it feeds people and doesn’t just exploit their shallow natures.

In the 2090s no one is going to look back on this period of history and go “Yeah Facebook positively impacted humanity.” It will rightly be viewed as a giant online scam.

[Narland]

I cannot answer the polling question. This is analogous to asking how fair it is that one cannot hear out of a set of binoculars. From 'binoculars are a crock, I have not been able to make sounds appear closer'; to 'binoculars are great, I can hear just as well as anybody else using them'. Justice is about exacting retribution for unlawful deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Voluntary exchange of goods and services is about voluntary exchange of goods and service. Both can just to the degree that they are fitting to the nature of their purpose, or unjust to the amount of force or fraud allowed to be perpetrated.

Do billionaires deserve their money? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I am pretty lenient. I think people deserve to live their lives unmolested from my opinions about ruling the world with my beneficent intelligence over the lives of people who do not deserve my good will, like GUI Designers, Shrinkflation Artists, Screamo Cover Bands, and Philatelists.

Did the billionaires receive their money lawfully? That is the question for me. Did they get it from being in bed with politics like certain people right now in power in DC, or did they work hard and smart while the playing by the rules of the very government that disdains them? If someone is the recipient of a bounty, should we be happy for them, like we would want others to be happy for us in the same place. Or do we want to be envious/covetous, ungracious and expect others to be bitter against us in the same when good fortune comes our way?

The more pertinent question from carving wheels, to selling matches, to hawking knockoff iPhones, is to ask oneself, "Do I deserve my money?" Why or why not? What product or service have I provided to make my affiliate human being a little bit better off in this world? What did I receive for it? Can I do better? Am I working for my dream or am I employed to work for someone else's?

[Existential Cats]

We Thanos snap Mark Zuckerberg and the world looks radically different.

Well yeah, the world would be a much better place. Let's Thanos snap Facebook and Meta too while we're at it.

[El Lazaro]

It’s not deserved as of this moment.

In the 2020s, Facebook has become at best irrelevant and at worst a focus point for all things shallow, superficial and worthless. Facebook could literally disappear and aside from jobs lost, there’s no real detriment to humankind.

If I had a choice between saving my favorite pasta place from bankruptcy or all of Facebook, I’d pick the restaurant. At least it feeds people and doesn’t just exploit their shallow natures.

In the 2090s no one is going to look back on this period of history and go “Yeah Facebook positively impacted humanity.” It will rightly be viewed as a giant online scam.

A good IM take? I’m kind of worried now.

[USS Monitor]

that goes for millionaires as well

It most definitely does not.

A lot of millionaires are just people that have worked hard at skilled jobs and saved for retirement. You don't need to own a major company or be a celebrity or anything like that to save up a million dollars by the time you reach retirement age.

[Saiwania]

Mathematically, it is still more advantageous to have $100 billion than it is to have even $1 billion, which is better than having $100 million- and that is the problem.

Whilst both people can afford to live in luxury for life without work including their children and children's children (if the money is spent wisely), the person with $100 billion can afford things the $100 million person can't. The capacity for greed or wanting even more or the next big possession/expense is seemingly unlimited.

A lot of the billionaires are essentially people who're huge ego-maniacs and want to either be #1 or have insanely expensive vanity projects that go nowhere but nonetheless burn up a ton of money if they're so inclined: such as funding space expeditions, new/experimental technologies, and the like. But is successful in getting their name out there or down in history.

[North Jus Intius]

It’s not deserved as of this moment.

In the 2020s, Facebook has become at best irrelevant and at worst a focus point for all things shallow, superficial and worthless. Facebook could literally disappear and aside from jobs lost, there’s no real detriment to humankind.

If I had a choice between saving my favorite pasta place from bankruptcy or all of Facebook, I’d pick the restaurant. At least it feeds people and doesn’t just exploit their shallow natures.

In the 2090s no one is going to look back on this period of history and go “Yeah Facebook positively impacted humanity.” It will rightly be viewed as a giant online scam.

That's where you're wrong. Welcome to the future baby.

[Saksoni]

No.
In a more "humane" capitalism, the max size of companies should be limited. . We could make them the basis of our economy by taxes, which would be made sure by instituting global tax from them, which would be used for the poorest countries. We wouldnt lower our efficiency that much, poorest countries could also make high tech things and minerals that we lack.
We wouldnt need workers from them as before we could make that, we would have robots anyways and these poor countries could produce them.
When it comes to startups, only those who could be profitale should be supported unless it comes to science.

[Dagnia]

It depends on the billionaire and sometimes which billions. A billionaire who made every penny providing products and services people wanted deserves every penny no matter how rich he is. The billionaire who made his billions through political pull (forcing competition out by regulating them out of business, billionaires made rich by exclusive government contracts) deserve to be taxed to with an inch of their lives.
The problem is, few billionaires in real life are totally like either one. Jeff Bezos for example made his first billions revolutionising retail. He made his more recent billions off people who had few or no other options since many mom and pop brick and mortar shops had been closed during lockdowns, whose effect on stopping an overblown head cold are dubious at best (something he supported). One set of billions he deserves, another set he doesn't.

[Infected Mushroom]

There was an astonishing (though thankfully brief) time in history where two people weren’t officially friends if they didn’t have each other on FB. And there was doubt as to the seriousness of a romantic relationship if the Facebook status didn’t reflect it.

Zuckerberg didn’t rise to billionaire status because he created something of value. He got there because he realized we are insecure, self-doubting, shallow, and easily manipulated individuals in need of affirmation. He looked at the board and thought “How can I monetize this? How can I take the engine of capitalism, combine it with my thrift and understanding of tech and the weaknesses of humanity… how can I take all of that and become filthy rich?”

It was a sort of mass psychological manipulation. A rational person would have realized “Hey wait a minute. Fuck Facebook. I have friends whether or not they Accept. I KNOW if this girl likes me or not and it’s her choice. I UNDERSTAND that some people don’t use Facebook or don’t want to put all their private info online. This is a scam. I’m not going to play a part.”

However, in the 2000s, we somehow allowed this techie scamster to rise to billionaire status over more deserving individuals. Now what does that say about our society and it’s values?

In what way does he do more than the garbage collectors, the shopkeepers, the factory workers, the every day parents, the farmers…

He knew how to play the capitalist game that’s what.

[North Jus Intius]

Value should be based on labor, not based on arbitrary numbers assigned to inanimate objects based on supply/demand logistics which are influenced by whether or not some truck driver decides they want to take a load or not, among other things in the supply chain.

Working hard by itself, isn't what makes the most profits. It is working smarter that usually pays off more. If you objectively can produce a better service/product that people want to buy more of than what any competition has, or if your patent is flat out better in terms of value. That is perhaps the root of your problem with how world economy works. If its indeed the case that value isn't based upon labor, then its just incorrect if labor theory of value hasn't or doesn't work in practice when people try it.

No one is really going to pay someone more money for cutting their lawn with a scythe just because it takes longer and the work is harder, compared to paying someone to cut their yard with a riding mower- if the end result is the same, only the latter method is much faster and more efficient.

Doing more in less time or doing something more valuable, that is what increases profits for a business.

You're missing the point. People should be paid for exertion, not for the profits. Whether that's mental exertion or physical exertion is irrelevant. It's silly that we're paying people to slowly kill themselves and then giving all the proceeds to glorified decision makers basing their decisions on a subject that places the dollar itself before humans and the products of their labor.
The humanities should have a lot more influence on society than economical theorists of any shade, especially if they adhere to puritan ideologies.

[North Jus Intius]

There was an astonishing (though thankfully brief) time in history where two people weren’t officially friends if they didn’t have each other on FB. And there was doubt as to the seriousness of a romantic relationship if the Facebook status didn’t reflect it.

Zuckerberg didn’t rise to billionaire status because he created something of value. He got there because he realized we are insecure, self-doubting, shallow, and easily manipulated individuals in need of affirmation. He looked at the board and thought “How can I monetize this? How can I take the engine of capitalism, combine it with my thrift and understanding of tech and the weaknesses of humanity… how can I take all of that and become filthy rich?”

It was a sort of mass psychological manipulation. A rational person would have realized “Hey wait a minute. Fuck Facebook. I have friends whether or not they Accept. I KNOW if this girl likes me or not and it’s her choice. I UNDERSTAND that some people don’t use Facebook or don’t want to put all their private info online. This is a scam. I’m not going to play a part.”

However, in the 2000s, we somehow allowed this techie scamster to rise to billionaire status over more deserving individuals. Now what does that say about our society and it’s values?

In what way does he do more than the garbage collectors, the shopkeepers, the factory workers, the every day parents, the farmers…

He knew how to play the capitalist game that’s what.

So what, he "sold his soul" to capitalism and that's why he became a billionaire because he studied all the manipulation tactics he could find and the used them in some kind of fully intended scheme to get rich? As I recall, Facebook started as a meetup website for college students, who are obviously going to be more liberal and typically yuppie. So you're flat out wrong, he provided a very valuable product at the exact time needed for it to take off. As for this thing about "we" being insecure, self-doubting shallow, and easily manipulated, stop projecting so much negativity. It's outright fallacious for you to assume the emotional status of millions of people, and rather out of touch. You sound like a conspiracy theorist, especially since you're using the name of a musical group whose shows are known to involve copious amounts of drugs.
I say this as one of those people who basically didn't use Facebook at all as it grew. It's their new expansions into VR and other avenues that have me interested.

[Saiwania]

You're missing the point. People should be paid for exertion, not for the profits. Whether that's mental exertion or physical exertion is irrelevant.

The problem people can run into is that there is more than one way to earn money. So this arrangement doesn't necessarily work for all employment cases.

Most people don't want to take on the huge financial risks of a company performing badly or going bankrupt, so they're trading time for money. If you're doing wage work- yes its true that there is effectively a cap on what you can earn. Your time is finite or remains fixed, so the only way for a wage worker to make more in that context is to be able to increase their wage rate or objectively become more valuable. Which means they're harder to hire unless if they're truly a hot commodity to where their skills/work really is in that much demand to where people willingly will pay them more.

Alternatively, people can be paid by commissions. This is great for people who're good in sales but terrible for other people who aren't as persuasive. They don't get paid any money at all- unless or until they manage to sell product. A real estate agent for example, will only get paid according to how many property sales they're able to successfully close. For them to get their commission, they have to get someone else to actually fork over their money.

Finally, some people are paid by results/outcomes, such as if they're a CEO or entrepreneur, where they have to deal with no or low pay at the beginning if their business doesn't immediately take off, but can become exponentially richer very quickly if its successful, because they're able to outsource everything that needs doing to other people- whilst still setting aside some portion of all profits for themselves if they've taken on most/all of the financial risks of running a company. If their business or share price is doing well, they get paid more in accordance with that, whilst if the opposite happens, they lose money.

The best model overall is to get paid via results/outcomes, but the crux is that most people can't do that if they're not up to such a task. So the typical choice is to get paid steadily but at a slower rate, or get paid quickly but have no guarantee of when next pay will be forthcoming- if that is really up to you to accomplish.

[Senkaku]

Our victory is inevitable.

I gotta say after the century we just had it’s maybe looking a little bit evitable

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

A couple of quotes from Information - Consciousness - Reality by James Glattfelder

Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Glattfelder, James B.. Information—Consciousness—Reality (The Frontiers Collection) (p. 462). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.

In fact, as empirical research by the IMF has shown, inequality is associated with economic instability. In particular, IMF researchers have shown that growth spells tend to be shorter when income inequality is high. This result holds also when other determinants of growth duration (like external shocks, property rights and macroeconomic conditions) are taken into account: on average, a 10-percentile decrease in inequality increases the expected length of a growth spell by one half. The picture does not change if one focuses on medium-term average growth rates instead of growth duration. Recent empirical research released by the OECD shows that income inequality has a negative and statistically significant effect on medium-term growth. It estimates that in countries like the US, the UK and Italy, overall economic growth would have been six to nine percentage points higher in the past two decades had income inequality not risen.

Glattfelder, James B.. Information—Consciousness—Reality (The Frontiers Collection) (p. 463). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[The Blaatschapen]

The Netherlands has a tax rate of 37% on taxable income from labour until €69k and 49% on every euro earned after that.

Taxable Income from stocks and ownership are taxed with either 27% or 31% (complicated story, when which applies, it's taxes).

(all numbers have been rounded)

I'd argue that billionaires do not deserve their money. They get taxed too little.