Do you agree? Disagree? Why?
Please avoid “I’d not waste my time” etc… kind of answers.
If all jobs were lost if rich people disappeared, then jobs aren’t really necessary.
If jobs are necessary self-evidently, they do not require rich people to exist or get done.
Ask them how their experience is with companies taken over by venture capitalists.
Take Walgreens for example. Their new VC “rich people” owners, Sycamore Partners have closed 500 stores and cut 9000 jobs since taking over. They’ve cut so many jobs that the remaining employees no longer even try to answer the phones. The shelves are bare and the prices even higher than they used to be.
“Trickle down” means being pissed on.
My brother owned a local franchise for a few years. When he first got into it he really liked the owners, their methods, etc. Last year the owners sold out to a private equity firm that started squeezing all the franchises with insane demands in order to make them more money. My brother got out as quickly as he could, and ended up barely breaking even.
Fuck private equity firms. I hope there’s a special place in hell for them.
Rich people are needed in our current system to provide money for literally everything because rich people, as a group, control and hoard all of the money.
If they didn’t hoard all of the money, they a) wouldn’t be rich and b) wouldn’t be needed to provide jobs because there’d be more money in circulation.
Money doesn’t come from rich people. They are not money trees. Money comes from the government and rich people hoard it so that the only way you and I can get money is to work for them.
The reason the money matters at all is because people need food, water, shelter, clothing, medicine, and community to live, but all of those things currently require money. Hoarding the money is equivalent to hoarding the necessities of life. We are destroying oversupply of food while people go hungry. We have vacancies everywhere while people go homeless. The whole system is organized by rich people against everyone else to prevent everyone else from having life’s necessities so that they are all compelled to work jobs for the money that the rich people hoarded explicitly so that you would starve if you don’t work for them.
Rich people aren’t necessary in all societies, just the ones organized like ours.
Why are poor people poor if have job? Does the job need to be done? Then pay me the money. I do not agree, if a job needs doing, there is a market for it. Rich people create very little, they pool creativity together, by paying them money. If the creative people did not need money to survive, they could create on their own, void of “funders” which is all rich people are.
I’ve done more jobs for working-class people than for rich ones.
That sounds a lot like saying that the obese are needed to provide food for the thin.
What are jobs? Are we talking about work that needs to be done, or are we requiring people to keep busy doing nothing to earn the right to stay alive?
Ask if by rich people they mean funding?
If no: ask them to discuss functions uniquely fulfilled by rich people in the allocation of funding. They will likely need time to reflect, so plan to resume later, but the best answer is expediency/dispatch via unitary agency, and it’s easy to demonstrate why this advantage (A) is outweighed by numerous liabilities via human fallibility and (B) isn’t actually unique.
If yes: they have already conceded, but you might then shift to the question: must there be people who are poor?
That is a meatier conversation, since it challenges their assumption that people require imminent threat of destitution to motivate productivity. You can brute force this argument via strong scientific consensus, but for most you need only rely on their belief in human dignity. Just be aware that the most difficult branches of this conversational pathway are exceptions they might have carved out: groups for whom they hesitate to ascribe human dignity. But the revelation of such bigotry is important for their own personal reflection.
GL
deleted by creator
I disagree.
If we are talking about starting companies, poor people start companies all the time. You don’t need to be rich to start a company.
As for having access to capital to create our expand a business, that doesn’t need to come from a rich person or a collection of rich people. For instance, a lot of investment comes from pension funds, which are made up of the savings of many people.
Sure, rich people own the companies that employ the poor, but many of those same companies are investing heavily into AI and other automation so they no longer have to.
A certain amount of wealth concentration is necessary to organize the production and distribution of goods efficiently and invest in research and development, but it’s the competition that drives people to strive for efficiency. Too much wealth concentration produces the opposite result where one person is able to make irrational and inefficient decisions, which negatively impacts everyone below them. See: Elon Musk. If was less wealthy, to the point where he couldn’t afford to fuck up, then he wouldn’t be able to screw over the people beneath him.
A fund need not have a single investor
Define rich.
A lot of money
People with more money than me are rich, and those with less money are poor. It’s like how people that drive faster than me are maniacs, amd those who drive slower than me are idiots.
Yes, people meed to litter constantly to provide jobs for people employed to collect it.
Most emplpyment is provoded by small business, they are not billionaires but their business can be destroyed by them.
“So, you hiring?”
