3 ms·
It still not even close to the majority of Americans no matter your definition. The vast majority of the stock market isn't held by billionaires either. The t
by anywhichway 3y ago
It still not even close to the majority of Americans no matter your definition. The vast majority of the stock market isn't held by billionaires either. The total net worth of all US billionaires is ~5 trillion and the stock market is worth ~40 trillion.
Even if you start counting anyone that works for a company even partially owned by a billionaire, about half of us employees work for small businesses: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-statistics https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/small-business-stati...
- croes 3y agoYou are still working for them, just not 100%
- robertlagrant 3y agoYou could also say you're working for pension funds as well. This is a silly line of reasoning.
- croes 3y agoYou work for both but only one is good. And it's not silly just reality.
- B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago> only one is good Er ... which one? The one where fund managers who get bonuses for quarterly performance decide stuff? Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ...
- guerrilla 3y ago> Seriously, we're getting into "banality of evil" territory ... And what? That means it's fine to just dismiss as if it's not a problem?
- robertlagrant 3y agoI've somehow created a thread that's attracted presumably independently wealthy people who think pension funds are evil.
- mcherm 3y agoYou COULD say that, if you define "working for" in a particular way. But if define it that way, then "working for" becomes a phrase that has no real use. "X is working for Y" just means "Y has a lot of influence in the world" and says nothing about the relationship between X and Y. So I don't recommend using that definition.