7 ms·

This is as disingenuous as saying that both the rich and the poor consume the same amounts of calories, nutrients, oxygen and water, and hence they are not that

by Arun2009 8mo ago

This is as disingenuous as saying that both the rich and the poor consume the same amounts of calories, nutrients, oxygen and water, and hence they are not that different. The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time. The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time. The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. This in turn helps them perpetuate their privilege. For instance, they can fund narratives that normalize inequality and lobby for lower taxes. The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this. One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more.

simianwords 8mo ago
>The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time. I agree with you on this. >The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time. In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working. https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/private-wealth-management/insights/billionaires-ambition-report.html https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/pr... Over 75% are self made billionaires and for sure these people work more than twice as hard as normal people. The others do normal jobs and I can't really find examples of non self made billionaires slacking off. https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-management-study-says/ https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-m... >On average, the CEOs participating in the study worked 9.7 hours per weekday and 62.5 hours per week. They also worked on the majority of their days off, on average 3.9 hours on weekend days and 2.4 hours on vacation days. Poor people don't work as hard for many reasons 1. they don't want to 2. they don't have the opportunity to 3. they don't have the health But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures. >The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally. Sure they can influence, but at the end of the day they consume the same which is more important for sustenance. Power and influence come higher in the hierarchy. >The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this. Agreed. >One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more. This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth. It is incorrect, misguided and a big mistake to think like this.
- actionfromafar 8mo ago
  It was incredible to see Bezos go from subsistance farmer to whatever it is now. Such a journey. I really enjoyed the documentary. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35291758/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_2_nm_6_in_0_q_melan https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35291758/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_...
- throwawayqqq11 8mo ago
  > In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working. Dont forget about inherited privileges. If work was the primary driver of wealth, we'd see a much more even distribution. I suspect the eager CEOs either want to inflate their contribution (i know plenty who dont) or actually work more because it is their earning and not just salary plus maybe arbitrary bonus.
  - simianwords 8mo ago
    I agree work is not the primary driver but competence + luck. Competence is not evenly distributed.
    - throwawayqqq11 8mo ago
      Dont forget inherited privileges like soft skills, acquaintances, insider knowledge, preferencial treatment/positive discrimination.
      - graemep 8mo ago
        Which is how most "self made" billionaires made their money.
- graemep 8mo ago
  What is their definition of self made? Zero inherited wealth? I doubt it. People who crossed the threshold? You can do that sitting on investment gains. CEOs and billionaires are different groups. Those willing to take part in a study are not a random sample. Its a sample sample too. The numbers depend on self reporting. You are buying into the myth of wealth going to those who create it. Most wealth is accumulated by being on the right end of transfers,and pricing power.

simianwords 8mo ago

>The key issue is that money often translates to such things as power and leisure. Prosperity is not consumption - it is the command over power, resources and time. I agree with you on this. >The poor have to sell their time in order to afford the basic necessities of life; the rich don't have to. So the rich have a lot more free time than the poor and the resources to use it well. The rich simply are freer than the poor, who are not unlike prisoners with no claim over their time. In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working. https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/private-wealth-management/insights/billionaires-ambition-report.html https://www.ubs.com/us/en/wealth-management/our-solutions/pr... Over 75% are self made billionaires and for sure these people work more than twice as hard as normal people. The others do normal jobs and I can't really find examples of non self made billionaires slacking off. https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-management-study-says/ https://fortune.com/2018/06/18/ceos-should-prioritize-time-m... >On average, the CEOs participating in the study worked 9.7 hours per weekday and 62.5 hours per week. They also worked on the majority of their days off, on average 3.9 hours on weekend days and 2.4 hours on vacation days. Poor people don't work as hard for many reasons 1. they don't want to 2. they don't have the opportunity to 3. they don't have the health But that also does not mean that billionaires have more free time. It's usually not the case, simply because they are more invested in their ventures. >The rich also get to influence policies to a far greater extent than the poor. In a way, wealth is just stored influence. I agree but this is a caveat against the fact that the rich and the poor consume equally. Sure they can influence, but at the end of the day they consume the same which is more important for sustenance. Power and influence come higher in the hierarchy. >The lives of the rich are also far more secure than the lives of the poor. Many poor people are one major life crisis away from penury. This significantly affects the quality of their lives. Access to more wealth would mitigate this. Agreed. >One could also flip your argument as follows: wealth is a scarce resource. If the rich already have everything they need to live a happy life at low amounts of wealth, then letting them horde more wealth than necessary is unjustified. Instead, that should be distributed to those in need. This would make no difference to the well-being of the wealthy, but it would help others who need resources more. This buys into zero sum ideology of wealth. It is incorrect, misguided and a big mistake to think like this.

actionfromafar 8mo ago
It was incredible to see Bezos go from subsistance farmer to whatever it is now. Such a journey. I really enjoyed the documentary. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35291758/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_2_nm_6_in_0_q_melan https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35291758/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_...
throwawayqqq11 8mo ago
> In general, I don't agree at all. Rich are "freer" but they definitely don't work fewer hours than poor on average. In USA the Rich became rich mostly by working. Dont forget about inherited privileges. If work was the primary driver of wealth, we'd see a much more even distribution. I suspect the eager CEOs either want to inflate their contribution (i know plenty who dont) or actually work more because it is their earning and not just salary plus maybe arbitrary bonus.
- simianwords 8mo ago
  I agree work is not the primary driver but competence + luck. Competence is not evenly distributed.
  - throwawayqqq11 8mo ago
    Dont forget inherited privileges like soft skills, acquaintances, insider knowledge, preferencial treatment/positive discrimination.
    - graemep 8mo ago
      Which is how most "self made" billionaires made their money.
graemep 8mo ago
What is their definition of self made? Zero inherited wealth? I doubt it. People who crossed the threshold? You can do that sitting on investment gains. CEOs and billionaires are different groups. Those willing to take part in a study are not a random sample. Its a sample sample too. The numbers depend on self reporting. You are buying into the myth of wealth going to those who create it. Most wealth is accumulated by being on the right end of transfers,and pricing power.