2 ms·
Some other commenters have pointed out that The Hill selectively quoted Ocasio-Cortez in the tweet mentioned in the article, but I want to engage the selective
by g_sch 8y ago
Some other commenters have pointed out that The Hill selectively quoted Ocasio-Cortez in the tweet mentioned in the article, but I want to engage the selective quote ("Economic system that allows billionaires is 'immoral'") on its own, and argue that it stands on its own. I think that we've lost some perspective on how obscenely much money a billion dollars really is, and it's worth thinking about the implications of this gigantic number.
Money is something we give people in exchange for labor. Is it possible to imagine any amount of labor that would be fairly compensated with a billion dollars? If a restaurant worker makes $25,000 in a year, what kind of work could one person possibly do to deserve 40,000 years' worth of restaurant wages? For that matter, we can even compare those numbers to the earnings of a software developer. If you make a salary of $150,000, it would take you 166 lifetimes (6,666 years / 40 working years in a lifetime) to make a billion dollars.
I know that capitalism offers ample justification for why someone might accumulate that much money (risk! market efficiencies!) but none of those add up to a moral case for me.
- gnarbarian 8y agoWithout the ability for a single man to acquire that much capital we wouldn't have Tesla or SpaceX. Labor doesn't always have value. If I spend 8 hours digging a hole nobody wants there is no value in it despite strenuous effort involved. But if someone with the talent, ability, resources and balls to earn a billion and then risk it on a new company to cure cancer, or solve similarly worldwide problems does so they deserve it. I'd argue that musk and bill Gates are far more effective with their money to improve humanity as a whole than if 90% of it were distributed to the destitute. SpaceX has also proven to be far more flexible, efficient, and agile than NASA in recent memory.