If you’re are literally working so hard that you’re 100 times more productive than someone earning minimum wage, take a vacation. If you don’t want to, it’s clear that money isn’t what motivates you the most when you choose to continue working.
Of course, you must be really ignorant to believe that people earn 100 times more than someone earning minimum wage because they’re 100 times more productive. Your capacity to produce is not the same as your capacity to earn money.
If we’re talking about X, you argue A, I counter with B, and instead of counter-arguing you just jump to a different point or framing, you just don’t want to admit that your premise didn’t hold much weight to begin with. “I want a system that rewards hard work” “This system doesn’t reward hard work” “Whatever, I want risk-taking people to be rewarded” You aren’t so much arguing as you’re rationalizing your position, rather than sincerely taking a look at your own argument when it’s challenged.
If you’re are literally working so hard that you’re 100 times more productive than someone earning minimum wage, take a vacation. If you don’t want to, it’s clear that money isn’t what motivates you the most when you choose to continue working.
Of course, you must be really ignorant to believe that people earn 100 times more than someone earning minimum wage because they’re 100 times more productive. Your capacity to produce is not the same as your capacity to earn money.
But that’s the point, you’re spray taking 100 types the risk when starting a business.
That’s what’s greenbelt not taken into account.
The start up costs, the risk involved, the investment capital.
The owners of the business hold all this risk so they should receive the reward as well.
50% of business don’t survive the first five years.
Investing isn’t working, and you were talking about working harder.
I’m talking about risk. The workers don’t saddle the risk.
And just because you haven’t said it yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
So we can only talk about one thing?
That’s a ridiculous position.
If we’re talking about X, you argue A, I counter with B, and instead of counter-arguing you just jump to a different point or framing, you just don’t want to admit that your premise didn’t hold much weight to begin with. “I want a system that rewards hard work” “This system doesn’t reward hard work” “Whatever, I want risk-taking people to be rewarded” You aren’t so much arguing as you’re rationalizing your position, rather than sincerely taking a look at your own argument when it’s challenged.
I said that billionaires produce something many people want.
I didn’t specifically say they work harder.
And part of the rain why they are paid more is because they have a higher risk element than the average worker.
It’s an especially part of the conversation.
I’m not just going to exclude it just to make you right.
It’s part of the reason why they should be rewarded with higher payments, because they took the higher risk.