Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I have no problems with billionaires, in a society where everyone's a millionaire.
A society that allows for such wealth disparity to happen is deeply corrupt. Anyone who not only participates in that society, but voluntarily becomes the cause of such disparity is irreparably morally bankrupt. They are a burden on society, contributing millions of times less than what they take.
That's still a pretty wild wealth gap, though. The difference between one million and one billion is about a billion.
That's a very poor way of comparing wealth. For example, the difference between $1,000 and $1,000,000,000 is also about a billion, but $1,000 is 0.0001% of $1,000,000,000 while $1,000,000 is %0.1
Buying power is not linear in today's world, either; at best, it's logarithmic. Because the law of diminishing returns is a thing, you can sink as much labor (and value) into goods and services as you want, and the quality will eventually reach an asymptote: it will approach perfection, but never get there. This means that in general, the difference between what millionaires and billionaires can afford is measured in quantity and not quality: billionaires can afford 100 yachts or one megayacht, but millionaires can still afford one of those near perfect yachts. Billionaires can afford many mansions, millionaires can still afford at least one. The millionaires have more in common with the billionaires than they do the average incomers ($60,000/yr in the USA). I make 3/4 of the average income, but I'd be lucky to afford a used jetski, much less anything resembling a yacht.
Put another way, in a society where everyone's a millionaire, the richest possible billionaire is 1,000,000 times more wealthy than the poorest possible person, and the average billionaire is only 1,000 times more wealthy than the average millionaire. Whereas right now, they are infinitely more wealthy than the poorest person, and the poorest possible billionaire is still 17,000 times more wealthy than the average person in the US.
So what I was originally getting at is that the mere fact of billionaires existing can only approach some semblance of morality in a society where their wealth doesn't put them on an entirely different plane of existence from the poorest people.