this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
1538 points (97.5% liked)

Memes

45745 readers
1746 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
1538
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Victim_0@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's the lifetime theoretical reward for highly skilled work vs what someone has right now.

You might think "that's just on paper", but cut it by 10 and it's still a nonsensical comparison. The scale is insane

It's a moon base built ASAP. It's build a floating country in the Atlantic the size of Delaware. It's buy a prefab house for everyone in the US who is renting or homeless. It's give everyone in the world a plane ticket to anywhere they want, round trip. It's build a maglev train network across a continent. It's wake up every day, go anywhere, and buy a new house at such an insane price the existing owner would agree to leave within the hour. It's build something the scale of the Washington monument at every rest stop across the US

These aren't things that would use up the wealth, these are things individuals could do, then go on to live the most extravagant possible life. Sure, a lot of these things would require careful planning and take decades if you actually wanted to do them, but that's the scale we're looking at - it's choose an issue and affect global change kind of money.

Yeah, wealth, income, and lifetime projected income are all very different things, it's apples and oranges. Except it's more like a single apple against every orange ever eaten - the sheer difference in scale makes any comparison meaningless. Simply spending their wealth, in any way, would drastically change the lives of countless people for the better

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If they spent their 'wealth' they'd have to convert their assets into cash, making it income, their wealth is shares in the companies they built. If they sold their shares the prices would tank

Those companies employee millions of people who receive income and pay taxes on it

A top band Amazon dev is earning 1m a year...

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Regarding the last point: so it will take said dev just another 185 thousand years to get to Bezos level

Regarding the first, there is a link to explanation about why this is not correct in the infographic

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They also get stock options regularly and dividends...plenty of people have started successful businesses after gaining sufficient wealth.

So, if we convince billionaires to sell all of their company slowly it'll all be fine? That's your logic?

A, why the fuck would they do that?

B, the shareholders via the board make the decisions, you think they'll be happy with a CEO who has no skin on the game? And would have to be compensated by fuck tons of cash, which would hurt the business

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My logic is that not every "successful business" is worth billions. And maybe there's sense in doing something with ones that are, like split them into several businesses that are not owned by a single person

Definitely. Regulators with no teeth and revolving doors for those with power and influence are the real danger.