I didn’t say that billionaires don’t have enough money, in fact I said the opposite if you reread however it was poorly worded from me. Gabe Newell is a billionaire off the back of Valve in the sense that he owns Valve which is a billion dollar company. Our views will differ and that’s obviously ok, but really Valve is the best example for my POV because it’s a company with lots of profit and a very small staff which means it can much more easily pay its staff a more than reasonable salary for their work. You can obviously argue that valve’s profits should be distributed more among the employees but this really comes down to the fundamental difference between Socialism and Capitalism and is something more than I am capable of arguing against since I do not have a postgraduate degree in Economics.
I personally prefer the Capitalistic view of whoever puts up the most risk gets the most reward if they succeed. How well this is done in practise is a very different matter, the government should definitely let business fail more often than they do [with the exception of the G-SIBs].
But I definitely believe that we should be looking to an increasingly socialist system as technology advances and jobs become less available.
I really appreciate your response to my comment and whole heartedly thank you for sharing your views on the matter :)
I think the word risk in this context is a loaded term.
They’re only risking their wealth. In most scenarios this comes from loans or inheritance. Sometimes it’s savings, but let’s not get into class dynamics too much, and why only some get the opportunity save.
So this risk only leaves them as a worker if they fail, because now they have to get a job like the rest of us. That is what they fear the most. Becoming just like everyone else whose work is underpaid if their idea to exploit capital fails. The real risk is on workers, because if they call in sick, lose their job, or get hurt, they starve.
I didn’t say that billionaires don’t have enough money, in fact I said the opposite if you reread however it was poorly worded from me. Gabe Newell is a billionaire off the back of Valve in the sense that he owns Valve which is a billion dollar company. Our views will differ and that’s obviously ok, but really Valve is the best example for my POV because it’s a company with lots of profit and a very small staff which means it can much more easily pay its staff a more than reasonable salary for their work. You can obviously argue that valve’s profits should be distributed more among the employees but this really comes down to the fundamental difference between Socialism and Capitalism and is something more than I am capable of arguing against since I do not have a postgraduate degree in Economics.
I personally prefer the Capitalistic view of whoever puts up the most risk gets the most reward if they succeed. How well this is done in practise is a very different matter, the government should definitely let business fail more often than they do [with the exception of the G-SIBs].
But I definitely believe that we should be looking to an increasingly socialist system as technology advances and jobs become less available.
I really appreciate your response to my comment and whole heartedly thank you for sharing your views on the matter :)
I think the word risk in this context is a loaded term.
They’re only risking their wealth. In most scenarios this comes from loans or inheritance. Sometimes it’s savings, but let’s not get into class dynamics too much, and why only some get the opportunity save.
So this risk only leaves them as a worker if they fail, because now they have to get a job like the rest of us. That is what they fear the most. Becoming just like everyone else whose work is underpaid if their idea to exploit capital fails. The real risk is on workers, because if they call in sick, lose their job, or get hurt, they starve.