Who did JK Rowling exploit?
-
-
Replying to @Unendedquest @cmac324 and
All the employees that worked in bookstores making minimum wage, the truckers that had to deliver her books while barely getting by, movie theater employees, need I continue? You can't make a billion without exploiting someone along the way.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BigCougSteve @cmac324 and
She never had a say in how those employees are paid. Therefore, it would not make any sense to say she exploited them.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Unendedquest @cmac324 and
I'm not saying the exploitation was intentional. I'm saying the system is broken and allows for people to be exploited for gain. If the people getting exploited had a safety net they could bargain for more. However they have no bargaining power. (Cause Unions have been destroyed)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BigCougSteve @cmac324 and
That is exactly what you said when I asked "Who did JK Rowling exploit?" Point being, billionaires aren't the problem. The problem is people unable to sell their value effectively. That does require some institution building, not simply tearing down others.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Unendedquest @BigCougSteve and
You & I likely agree that societal safety nets are vital both to human well-being & to ensuring that everyone spends their time/energy on their best possible work in the world, but people who believe all wealth is aggregated through exploitation really don't have ears for this.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @Unendedquest and
Not all wealth. Wealth over $1 billion. Once you reach that threshold and continue to try and accumulate wealth you become a villain. You have 100% freedom in your life at that point and could help millions that are not able to help themselves.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BigCougSteve @Unendedquest and
Look, I can't continue talking to you about this until you give me some indication that you understand the difference between founding a company with some valuation & literally having that money in the bank, such that you or someone else could actually spend it to help themselves
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @BigCougSteve and
Even a lot of these founders spend long periods of time living off of *loans* so they don't have to sell their ownership stake in the companies they're building in order to pay their bills. This kind of wealth is not the same thing as having a wallet full of cash.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @Unendedquest and
You've moved on to a different point. My point is that we should create a system where this type of risk of ruin isn't necessary at the expense of capping your success at $1 billion. Failure shouldn't mean being destitute. As some must fail for others to succeed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"Billionaires should/shouldn't exist" runs almost orthogonal to "effective safety nets should/shouldn't exist." At some point, you're going to have to decide whether your priority is soaking the rich or helping the poor. This is not a zero-sum world; they're not the same thing.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.