Do you agree? Disagree? Why?
Please avoid “I’d not waste my time” etc… kind of answers.
You don’t need capital to hire people, you need demand. The job creator thing is a myth if you’re feeling charitable, or propaganda if you aren’t.
I like the Ben Elton line: “He only had one dick & one stomach”.
There comes a point where having more inevitably means hoarding more.“So, you hiring?”
Ask them how many sets of kitchen cabinets a rich person needs compared to a pore person. Then ask them what makes more work, one person buying 1 set of fancy cabinets or a 100 people buying an average set of kitchen cabinets.
An economy is strong not because there are many dollars of value in it, it is strong because many dollars of value move within it. The movement is the key thing people miss. The fact that there is $100 worth of food in a system means nothing if it never moves from the grocery store to a home, to a hungry person. The rich don’t get rich by moving value, they get rich by hoarding it, weakening the economy. A rich person buying all the food and only giving crumbs to the few workers they need would break the system. When food or fuel were scarce during recent history did we allow single rich families to buy it all? In order to keep the system functioning it was rationed. Why is capital any different?
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.
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.
Thats simply untrue
We would just have a lot of smaller businesses all over. Instead of a few gigantic ones.
No more mcdonalds. Instead we would have multiple “bobs burgers” style places
I bet that man makes some really tasty burgers
I disagree. Cooperatives exist, in Germany many Banks and many companies renting out flats are cooperatives.
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.
That sounds a lot like saying that the obese are needed to provide food for the thin.
I wonder how they’d take to being called “morbidly rich”? 🤔️
This needs to be made an actual thing. Being filthy rich should be an actual risk to ones health. It already is to everyone else’s.
You should read about the Paris Commune
https://anarchistfaq.org/translations/decree-councils.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
It’s not a direct argument. But very interesting.
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’d agree to a point but I’d point out they’re doing a piss poor job of it. The ruling class is at its best in decades and we have unemployment? Fucking why? Compel them to answer that and then you can begin hammering out the finer points. So basically if the rich provide for the poor by slowing the poor to work and provide for their families, then why the fuck is employment and home ownership down so much?
You ask them that.
This person would say it’s the poor fault to not find a job, lazyness.
How does that work if there are more total people than total jobs?
Or they would say that the person should take any job, even if it would pay them so low that they can’t pay rent, keep the lights on, and feed themselves — in other words, effectively slavery.
That’s a fallacy. The argument that we need the rich to provide jobs implies we need the rich to provide meaningful jobs that allow people to be self sufficient. If they’re actual job creators, the benefit is that they’re lifting others up. Maybe not as high as they are, but they are benefiting society. If they fail to do that, the argument that the rich create jobs carries no weight.
