3 ms·
That gets into Heritage Foundation semantics over "what does rich mean." Of course we can shift the definition of "rich" around until everybody (or nobody) is "
by Iftheshoefits 13y ago
That gets into Heritage Foundation semantics over "what does rich mean." Of course we can shift the definition of "rich" around until everybody (or nobody) is "rich," but I don't think that leads to any meaningful discussion (unless the point of the discussion is, of course, to engage in a semantics argument over that meaning).
- Crito 13y agoDefining "rich" is important because if we don't do that, then we cannot have a sensible conversation. Anyway, I am not the person that wants "rich" to be defined with such a low bar. Rather it is the SF protesters and their supporters who are setting that low bar. To them, the bog-standard tech worker is "rich", hence their objections. Personally, I prefer a much higher bar for rich. The "1%er billionaire" is closer to my preferred definition.