4 ms·
He's more or less saying "no one should ever be richer than my favorite singer." I can't possibly think of a shallower way to talk about wealth inequality.
by mrfredward 7y ago
He's more or less saying "no one should ever be richer than my favorite singer." I can't possibly think of a shallower way to talk about wealth inequality.
- e40 7y agoSeriously, stop thinking about the singer and think about the number. $500,000,000. That's a lot of money. The world is a crazy place right now, and part of it has to do with so few people amassing so much wealth.
- pjc50 7y agoThe argument was that nobody should be richer than what they can earn through work, or "exploitation" of themselves as a capital asset. Ronaldo would also work as a yardstick. Earning purely through property or being a boss wouldn't. It's an interesting one to explore, as there are all sorts of annoying corner cases possible.
- mrfredward 7y agoThe royalties an artist receives are a form of passive income. Beyonce had to work to create an asset (her music), but when she's done with a recording the income comes from controlling the asset, not directly from her labor. It's really not that much different to owning a business. She's still capturing an outsize portion of the value from a process that involves thousands of other people. Wealthy musicians are still capitalists, and getting rich running a business that employs thousands should be as respectable as singing, if not more so.