4 ms·
You don't think the guy that buys the factory that a thousand people work in contributed more? He should get $10/hour for laying out a couple billion?
by LanceH 6y ago
You don't think the guy that buys the factory that a thousand people work in contributed more? He should get $10/hour for laying out a couple billion?
- oblio 6y agoIf all I have is $10, spending $5 on something risky and losing it is a tragedy. When I have $1bn and I spend $5 million x 100 risky investments, then losing $500 million means that I, my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren will still be richer than the top 10% in even the most developed country. At some point the whole risk-reward shtick breaks down.
- gh-throw 6y agoThis is why the pat answer of "capital is rewarded for taking risk, that justifies their pay" doesn't ring true to me. Your downside is... still being rich and never, ever having to work if you don't want to? Hot damn, give me some of that risk!
- boomboomsubban 6y agoWhat have they done except have money in your example? Why should they get anything?
- andrepd 6y agoClassic example of justifying X with X (justifying capitalism inside the framework of capitalism).
- matsemann 6y agoHow did he amass that billion in the first place? By contributing 1000x, or just because the capitalistic society rewarded him more for his efforts than some other workers earlier in his career?
- MagnumOpus 6y agoMore likely than not he/she inherited it. It's true for the vast majority of multimillionaires, from royals and aristocrats (obviously) to the Waltons/Rockefellers/Rothschilds/Abby Johnsons of this world, to the Chinese Party Princeling, to the 2nd generation of Silicon Valley aristocracy like Laurene Jobs & co.