416
Says the guy trying to earn a trillion. Fuck him government should break up his company and hold him to his words.
“They trust me, dumb fucks,” was uttered by him years before that and his non-’answers to Congress.
I don't know if I'd say "earn" so much as "amass"
And tar and feather him in town square
Before or after the French Royalty treatment?
Just for context, if you made 100k a year, an extremely enviable salary, and saved every penny somehow, you'd be a billionaire in exactly TEN THOUSAND YEARS.
No one can earn a billion dollars through honest labor and the sweat of their brow. It must be exploited out of others. It must be stolen. You cannot possess a billion dollars and be a decent human being. For any good you do, you can't approach the harm you've already inflicted upon others in the name of insatiable greed.
Oh I'm sorry, they've used their wealth to warp the culture and language to their benefit, so greed doesn't exist anymore. I meant "rational self-interest." also we have always been at war with Eurasia.
I work 7 days a week and my wife works full time to get that $100k/year and it took us years to get where we are in our careers. $1million in assets is still so far away. It's such an incredible amount of money and Zuckerberg and friends have thousands of times that much money. It's just so crazy to think about.
🤔 I don't necessarily believe that. An independent creator of a blockbuster franchise could in principle become a billionaire ethically. Like J.K. Rowling; she's estimated to have upwards of a $1.2 billion net worth. (say what you will about her) (I don't like her either but facts are facts)
You're forgetting that it's not like we go to Rowling's house to get her books, or even download the manuscript P2P from her personal server.
Someone's exploited labor printed the folio, bound it, packed it, shipped it, stocked it, advertised it, sold it to you and put it into a bag...
And more, cut down the trees to make the paper, mixed the ink, delivered the reams and the vats to the factory...
But it's not the author exploiting publishing companies. It's the execs of those companies exploiting their own workers. The publishing companies make excellent money (and same for paper creators, etc). Just it disproportionately goes to execs and possibly shareholders, not workers.
of course you can slice it any way you like. I'm not saying no one should be an author, but I am saying billionaires aren't made without exploitation somewhere
And here's the problem I have with that: not all labor is exploitative. No matter what economy we have, there would still be laborers printing the book, binding it, cutting down the trees and making the paper, etc.
Even if they're not making an even split of company profits, some worker somewhere is happy with what they're getting.
And regardless of economy, some worker will be unhappy working somewhere, feel they're not getting their fair share, etc.
That doesn't change simply because we switch from capitalism to some other system.
The only fair way for that book to be made from the implications given is if all of the labor is automated, but at the end of the day a human being would have to do some work somewhere no matter how many levels of automation redundancy you have, so how is he not implying being expected to do anything is the problem, and using the blatant shitty behavior of the rich as a smokescreen for that?
We could live in a Jetsonian paradise where all he'd have to do is push a few buttons once a day and he'd still complain.
I have done things that are hard work for less compensation than it deserves and been happy to give it freely (ie charity, volunteering), but that doesn't mean we can't examine the power structure, even if the plurality of people are happy inside it.
I know. That's what I'm doing, critically examining these claims people keep making. I really don't have a stake in the game either way.
100k isn’t that much in many regions these days. Its enough to get by but hardly enough to save to buy a house in the Seattle region.
You forget the impact of compound interest. If you invested 1 dollar at 1% interest, you would have a billion dollars in just over 2000 years. So these comparisons based on income are not useful.
Is there a single impressive philanthropic feat that has been achieved by any of these billionaires?
If I had access to hundreds of billions and I wasn't able to solve a single meaningful welfare issue for even a single country in the world in my own lifetime, I would consider that abject failure.
Most people say Bill Gates but it reminds me of the classic joke:
The woman you know as your grandmother is not my mother. That's an elderly woman now trying to get into heaven
Bill Gates acted identically to Zuckerberg and Musk and every other hated billionare back in the 90s. There was a time Micro$oft was always written with the dollar sign. There was a time a young smug grinning Gates was posted everywhere as the poster child for rich assholes. The Microsoft board of directors did the smart move and removed Gates from management and then he quietly retired. He's had an Ebenezer Scrooge moment and has spent the last decade trying to buy his way into people's good graces.
It's great that Gates is helping people, but I don't think we should all have to suffer under a power hungry cut throat CEO and hope one day they have a change of heart.
Fortunately greater numbers are coming to realize that the Gates Foundation's function was never much more than reputation laundering.
Plus, is it really charity when you give your money to an organization you control?
It is only charity when you control how resources are used.
Justice and solidarity depend on the beneficiary deciding how to use the resources it receives, but charity is not justice and solidarity.
Same as any robber baron.
He forced the covid vaccine to go private with Moderna. Micro$oft was cute and all but these pharmaceutical companies have killed and are killing hundreds of thousands simply by charging so much for the cure.
Bill Gates has done significant good fighting disease. Still something that should've been decided by society, not a single person, but credit where credit is due.
Unfortunately anti vaxxers have destroyed a lot of that legacy anyway.
Bill Gates has done significant good fighting disease.
No, he got in the way of progress for the sake of his own profit. The scientists that made the covid vaccine wanted it to be open source so any country could make their own, but he forced the company to patent it instead.
He's also been funding anti-scientific propaganda to convince people that his anti-solutions will solve the climate crisis. His foundation also regularly invests in ventures that pollute the Global South.
He's not perfect, and your examples show why these sorts of decisions on spending and priority shouldn't be in the hands of a single person who isn't even an expert in diseases.
It's still worth acknowledging that he did plenty to help with polio and malaria, even if it could've been done better by another method.
That "antisolitions" read was fascinating! Thanks for sharing.
Mackenzie Scott seems to be making it her mission to no longer be a billionaire by giving money to charity.
Last reports indicate that she can't give it away fast enough, but I'm not sure she's really trying
Capitalists actually keep the developing world from fully developing. On purpose. And NGO Aid has been proven to stagnage rather than assist countries that are constantly receiving it, such as Haiti. Yeah I would consider that failure, too. But they certainly wouldn't. And perhaps, with that many eyes in you, it might actually be harder to get things done that go against the interests of other rich and powerful people.
...except me"
I'm sure he's self aware enough to know he doesn't deserve it. I think there's very few people that believe that there exists a meritocratic place in this earth and Zuck doesn't strike me as the type to believe he was chosen by God.
I get the impression plenty of these ultra-rich techbros come to believe that they're there by merit. They don't see all the luck that went into their riches, and they habitually take credit for the work done by those beneath them. People like Bezos and Musk may genuinely believe they're better (smarter, more insightful, more capable) than others. I expect many ultra-rich CEOs get like that, not just in tech companies. And certainly many of those investors who do nothing but mess around with the stock market think they're more brilliant than everyone who doesn't.
Billionaires bad
- A billionaire
Sounds like he's been humbled by the Metaverse's failure. Big money also means big losses one day.
Jeff Bezos recently pledged to donate about $124b for charity and fighting climate change. It really seems like these billionaires have been hit by 3 ghosts.
Still eat the rich, but I guess there's been some good news from them.
From https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/business/jeff-bezos-charity/index.html:
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos plans to give away the majority of his $124 billion net worth during his lifetime, telling CNN in an exclusive interview he will devote the bulk of his wealth to fighting climate change and supporting people who can unify humanity in the face of deep social and political divisions.
Though Bezos’ vow was light on specifics, this marks the first time he has announced that he plans to give away most of his money. Critics have chided Bezos for not signing the Giving Pledge, a promise by hundreds of the world’s richest people to donate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes.
So he made a vague promise, "light on specifics", that he would give away "most" of his money to fighting the climate change that is exacerbated by his lifetime's work and the social divisions that he has worked relentlessly to entrench? He could fight social divisions by treating his employees well and allowing them to unionize, but Amazon is notorious for mistreating its workers, it profits off forced labour in China, and he has fought dirty against unionization at every opportunity.
Forgive me for suspecting he's full of shit with his vague and noncommittal promise, after a self-serving lifetime of aggressively doing the opposite.
Yeah, the wealthy “giving it all away” is always a bullshit scheme in some way. If they really felt that way, they would have shared the profits with those who helped create them. This sort of wealth only happens in literally one situation: greed overcomes compassion for others.
These schemes usually fall into one of three categories:
-
I fucking hate my kids and don’t have anyone I think actually deserves this money, so I’m giving it to some random charities of my choosing when I die because I know damn well I can’t spend it all and I have to do something with it
-
I’m just putting it all into a charitable trust that I still have full control over and likely won’t spend much out of it, unless it benefits me personally
-
Straight up bullshit PR campaign about a future promise that is not binding
Quite often, it’s a combination of 1 and 2, locking up the money for a loooong time and only to be used for a specific purpose.
Charitable trusts have to be donated to charity. You can't pull the money back out. It's like giving it away that year.
Yeah, a ton of things can be a "charity". You can donate the money to your friends at a church or a clubhouse for your friends and still have it be a "charity".
I think we’re saying the same thing, but it’s definitely not like giving it to charity that year. They are irrevocable trusts so you can’t take the money back from it, but the majority money doesn’t immediately have to go anywhere.
And even when money does flow out (beyond admin/establishment costs), there are TONS of creative ways to use it for personal benefit.
See Rolex and Hershey for two of the biggest examples. Or giant charity galas.
Many ways to use the funds for “non-profit” entertainment. Plenty of ways to get kickbacks from “charitable” donations. Non-profit status is not that high of a hurdle.
These tactics are precisely intended to placate critics.
It is not good news when Bezos commits funds to charity and fighting climate change.
Good news would be the mass of society rising to end the conditions that cause climate change and that make charity necessary.
Mark Zuckerberg now: must... get... more... money!
I mean, hate on him if you want, but this isn't really hypocritical. He doesn't take a salary, his entire fortune is from Meta stock he owns, and he has a sort of Bill Gates thing going on where he plans to donate the majority of his Meta stock wealth through his own foundation. From what I've heard they've funded some serious medical advancements and have plans to bring more AI to the space.
I don't think billionaires should exist either, but it's not like he can just give it all away without losing control of his company.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
416 points (98.4% liked)
Work Reform
9652 readers
256 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS