4 ms·
That sounds like a collective choice, not a logical consequence. Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people? Or would you work
by Jill_the_Pill 8y ago
That sounds like a collective choice, not a logical consequence. Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people? Or would you work toward some sort of redistribution -- either of resources or hours?
edit: on reflection, probably 95% starving people would accomplish that redistribution pretty efficiently with or without you!
- maxxxxx 8y ago"Would you ever want to be one of 5% working surrounded by starving people?" Just go to a third world country or even places like New York or San Francisco. You'll see super wealthy, shiny places right next to homeless people or slums and the wealthy people seem OK with this or don't feel enough discomfort to do anything. Or they just do enough to get these people out of sight.
- watwut 8y agoLooking at history, redistribution does not hapen out of good heart. So yes, 5% will be surrounded by starving people and blame those people. Also, the 5% is likely to be selection biased for power hungry and ruthless (cause there will be struggle for those 5% positions).
- burrows 8y agoMy Musk-Samsung RoboServant (TM) discourages the ruffians quite effectively.
- coding123 8y agoClearly, the 5% would be slaughtered pretty quickly. This is one of the reasons (IMHO) that jobs suddenly open up after things like Occupy, even if there's no tangible or realistic reason why jobs are suddenly needed.