I don’t mean doctor-making-150k-a-year rich, I mean properly rich with millions to billions of dollars.
I think many will say yes, they can be, though it may be rare. I was tempted to. I thought more about it and I wondered, are you really a good person if you’re hoarding enough money you and your family couldn’t spend in 10 lifetimes?
I thought, if you’re a good person, you wouldn’t be rich. And if you’re properly rich you’re probably not a good person.
I don’t know if it’s fair or naive to say, but that’s what I thought. Whether it’s what I believe requires more thought.
There are a handful of ex-millionaires who are no longer millionaires because they cared for others in a way they couldn’t care for themselves. Only a handful of course, I would say they are good people.
And in order to stay rich, you have to play your role and participate in a society that oppresses the poor which in turn maintains your wealth. Are you really still capable of being a good person?
Very curious about people’s thoughts on this.
People who hoard more money than they can spend in several lifetimes while people are literally dying in the streets cannot be good. These things are mutually exclusive.
Agreed.
For me personally it’s more a question of does your money hoarding system exploit people or is it family money that’s been made unethically. I think keeping that kind of money to yourself is unethical. And I don’t mean you should go living from riches to rags but recognize that you own something to society and do something about it.
Soros attempted to gain wealth to use it as a tool to fight for the oppressed. Didn’t work out too well for him.
Removed by mod
I don’t mean doctor-making-150k-a-year rich, I mean properly rich with millions to billions of dollars.
I firmly believe there are no ways to become “properly” rich that don’t require you to be a bad person.
To get out of that “doctor-making-150k-a-year” category you need some combination of greed, exploitative practices, manipulating broken capitalist systems, nepotism, ruthlessness, corruption, bribery, and outright lying.
idk, you probably have a small number of artists and genuinely lucky-sons-of-bitches who get proper rich without being bad people. Or at least with their wealth not coming from being a bad person.
Yeah, fair enough, I’m not too arrogant to admit there are exceptions to every rule.
And more power to artists and exotic chefs and others, who are able to get sociopath billionaires to fork out crazy amounts of money for their work.
Removed by mod
I don’t think I can 100% get behind the direct link that being an artist makes you a virtuous person, though I understand your bigger point.
I think we are overlooking tremendously how the art world is often a method in which the ultra wealthy wash their money. I don’t think that artists that rise to the level of success of becoming a household name are blind to this.
I agree totally, which is why I made that distinction. And my last point about participating in the system that oppresses the poor just to maintain your own wealth. I can’t see how someone like that could be considered good.
We’re all arguably participating in that same system.
Not like we have a choice, especially those of us in poverty. You’re dealt your hand and thats that. Born poor, die poor. Born rich, enjoy life. Shouldn’t be that way but it is
Removed by mod
You can be born into it.
I’d say you’re a bad person if you’re born into it and don’t actively try to get rid of it.
I think the point of being a rich asshole is 1 billion dollars usd. Even 999mm is too much, but over 1 bil is an easy demarcation of excessive wealth.
1 billion? I think rich asshole starts much lower than that or 999 million, thats a fuck ton of money. Rich asshole begins at 1-3 million and up.
999 million what? 999 million net worth? What happens when the market goes on a 15% hike like in 2020? Do you become the bad guy? Or is that 999 million in liquid assets (spoiler alert billionaires don’t have 1 billion in the bank). Thinking you have a point shows how ignorant you are about wealth except the fact you hate people who have more than you
Someone who has 999 million has looked at their wealth and said, “I need more”, while knowing how hard normal people are struggling. The same goes for people with 500 million.
500 million, even if it’s entirely illiquid, is enough to you and your entire family to live 10 lives of absolute luxury while never working. You can borrow against it and still grow your wealth faster than any reasonable person could spend it.
It’s not about the specific amount of money, it’s that they keep increasing their wealth far beyond any reasonable point.
It’s a childish argument to say anyone who criticizes billionaires is jealous. I don’t want to be a billionaire, I want everyone to have a little wealth.
That was going to be my response. If you’re obscenely wealthy but you’re in the process of trying to get rid of that wealth via philanthropy, I think you get a pass.
And not just “pledges”. Actual donations.
So like, almost no multimillionaires.
Bill Gates gets a ton of benefits from his philanthropy. He gets to pay less taxes, he gets to influence the world with his donations, he gets honored at functions for his donations, he gets social validation. All while increasing his wealth.
Philanthropists basically always get benefits from their donations. Real people get hurt while they amass their wealth, and when they give a fraction of it away, they get far more benefits than a middle class person who donated a similar fraction of their wealth.
Arthur Sackler is a perfect example of philanthropy for personal benefit. He amassed his wealth directly on human suffering, getting America addicted to benzodiazepines and then opiates years later. He used his donations to museums to get himself a free place to store the artifacts he was collecting, and trained staff to preserve them. He got events in his honor. He got a hospital wing named after him, which came with priority service at a NYC hospital, where they keep specially equipped rooms and immediate access to a doctor for benefactors.
I’ll be impressed with a billionaire giving away their wealth when one of them gives it to a cause that will work to prevent anyone else from becoming a billionaire.
I find this take so hypocritical.
I bet you have more food than some people. Are you giving it to them?
You have a roof over your head, other people don’t. Are you giving it to them?
You most likely have more money than others, considering your access to the internet and ability to think up this post - are you donating all of your excess that isn’t going to your bills and food?
Calling it “hoarding” is just intentionally vilifying having money. Are some rich people bad? Absolutely. Are they bad because they’re rich? No. Do they have an obligation to give their money away? Also no.
I think you’re missing the points about scale and marginal utility. If you have more food than 3 generations of your family will ever eat, and continue to take more while others are starving, you can make a moral argument that maybe you shouldn’t have so much food. Much less continue to try and get more. It becomes more egregious when you, say, take food from your employees who don’t always have enough.
Agree with this. We should remember that doctor-making-150k is far closer to being homeless than they are to a billionaire, with their individual wealth rivaling small countries.
Removed by mod
I think you’re missing the points about scale and marginal utility.
Missing the point and misconstruing the argument to protect the wealthy is the point.
Bear with me here, I’m thinking about all this as a thought experiment…please don’t jump on me all at once :)
I don’t disagree with you, there is a difference in utility, however what would you say to someone who has two homes? Say a vacation home on a lake? This wasn’t uncommon for persons of older generations (before shit got expensive). Because while two homes may not seem egregious to citizens of highly developed countries, it is, relatively speaking, a true extreme luxury in many parts of the world, perhaps even obscene if you consider those who live in shanty towns or those who are homeless.
And what about extra cars? Or any other luxury for that matter? Anything that explains why those in less developed countries see middle-class individuals in developed countries as “rich”?
Now these are nothing in comparison to the several orders of magnitude greater that a billion dollars is, but take them as the best examples I can think of off the too of my head lol.
Remember marginal utility is relative. My point is that, who decides what defines excess to the point where you’d make the argument you just made? where is the line? Certainly billionaires qualify, but how many millions does one need to hit that threshold? And who makes that determination? The individual with the extreme wealth will have warped perceptions (“It’s one banana, Michael. What could it cost, $10?”), so then it must be the non-wealthy who have insight, if any, or is it all relative?
I’m not trying to defend or apologise for the ultra-rich, but I think about these things in the sense of: what would I do if I won the mega-millions? Or had some secret unknown relative bestow obscene wealth on me? Never in a million years of course, but I’m the kind of person who likes to have positions that don’t change situationally, I’d like to be confident enough of my beliefs that I’d know what I’d do if the situation were reversed.
Anyway, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk lol. Again please don’t think i’m trying troll or something, this is a philosophical question for me.
It’s important to recognize just how much more billionaires make than millionaires, but at the same time, no, neither of them are good or can be while maintaining that amount of wealth, and the reason is because you cannot make that much money by working. The ONLY way to make that much money is by making profit off of others.
Idk man in some areas a house costs a million. If two people go into debt their whole life and work their butts off to pay for a house that now costs a million, I still think of them as normal people somehow yaknow
A lot of that is because we’re in the middle of a housing crisis thanks to enormous companies buying up all the property, pushing normal people out of the house market to renting. On top of that, buying a 1 million dollar house doesn’t make one a millionaire.
?? After you’ve paid off your million dollar house, you are a millionaire by definition.
Most of us don’t pay off a million dollars in one payment??? Paying off mortgages takes a long ass time, In smaller increments. You might “technically” be a millionaire, but you won’t be comparable to the kind of “rich” we’re talking about here. You can make that kind of money by working.
Not looking to be combative, I’m curious: where is your moral line where the scale is too great, and why is it there? A lot of these comments read that that line should be “above me somewhere”.
There’s a huge difference between having food to eat
And having millions of dollars doing nothing
Or me living in an apartment
And someone living in a building that could take up a whole city block
It’s not the fact that they have money. It’s how they get it and what they do with it.
I have money, but I don’t have enough to save. I don’t make enough to do much outside of maybe buy a small amount of food for a homeless person. I’m not solving shit. However, living in the city I have had people ask for some change, and I’ve done it. But I can’t do shit.
However, there are people who can actually help that won’t. They get more money than they need and then just sit on it. Many of them get it through exploiting others.
But if we want to ignore things scaling and just reach, if I give a homeless person a dollar, should he not share that?
Have you looked up how much a Billion dollars really is? Billionaires are not living paycheck to paycheck. They could do so fucking much with their money and resources, but they choose to invest in shitty submarines and privatized space travel. I am all for pursuing advances in tech and life, but let’s solve the issues with earth first like world hunger, homelessness, and climate change.
For context: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
Fantastic fucking visual.
Holy shit somehow this struck harder than the Tom Scot video where he drives the length of the thickness of a billion dollar bills.
I suggest to scroll the entire page. Including the 3.2 trillion of the richest 400 americans. And remember that the tiniest scroll you can make would lead to you becoming a multi-multi millionaire that never has to look at their bank account ever again.
I am incredibly disgusted
WOW!!
Everyone please see this!!
deleted by creator
I don’t think everyone should be forced to give away everything they don’t need to survive, I just think (in America’s case) if you have enough wealth for several generations to live in luxury while our people are dying from inaccessible medicine and healthcare and more than half of our country has no savings living paycheck to paycheck, we’ve massively failed as a society to provide basic needs for our people. You could fund universal healthcare with just a tax on billionaires and they wouldn’t have to change their lifestyle at all. If I had enough money that I lost 90% of it and I literally couldn’t notice the difference, I’d be full of guilt every night watching people die because they rationed their insulin.
Even without a tax in place (and I seriously and truly support putting a tax in place), millionaires and billionaires could take relatively small steps to improve life for a lot of people.
Do you remember last year that news story where a church used the donations from the collection plate to buy up the medical debt for some people? If I’m recalling correctly, the church bought up the debt, pennies on the dollar, and with like $50k were able to help over 100 people. I may have wrong figures for the money value and the number of people impacted, but I think the point remains that a lot of people’s lives got better without the medical debt, both financially and emotionally.
Billionaires have the capacity to do this same type of thing. Just pick any city and throw money at a major problem that directly impacts citizens. You don’t even need to work with the city or state government there! Get together with your other billionaire friends and strategize to pick a variety of cities. Make a game out of it about who can afford to pay off the problems in Los Angeles or Chicago, and who can only afford to pay off the problems in Sacramento or Springfield.
I have nothing new to reply to this with because others who have replied to you have already said what I would have said perfectly. I do want to say I find your reply incredibly ignorant and I hope the other replies have opened your eyes a bit.
are you donating all of your excess that isn’t going to your bills and food?
My ‘excess’ that doesn’t go to bills and food is like 15 bucks, while theirs is several hundred million. Great comparison 👍🏼
Yeah this is missing magnitudes of scale here. Someone with 100,000 and someone with 1,000,000,000 are wildly different scales of magnitude. It’s like people who look at a mag-4, mag-5, and mag-6 earthquake. Each of those is on a log scale, so while you’re just going form 4 to 5, the scaling means that’s a massive amount of change.
Same diff here. The economy is mostly based around the buying power of the median. So every log₁₀ past that point means massive change. So going from 100,000 to 1,000,000 is a pretty big change in the amount of security one has. So going from 1e5 to 1e9, that’s a change of 1000 on the scale. The level of change between those two is absolutely astronomical.
I get this facet of mathematics eludes folks. All the while the whole “double the number of grains per square on a chessboard” thing we all like to play with because it’s interesting. But this is that IRL. The average person and the average billionaire are on two totally different scales. It’s like saying, “why a beetle doesn’t glow when the sun does?” Like you can’t reasonably compare those two things. Yeah, both contain hydrogen at some level but in massively, massively different quantities. It’s like saying, your computer is just an overgrown abacus. It’s just ignoring scale so much that it veers into very wrong.
I get what you’re trying to say. But you’ve got to acknowledge the vast difference of scale here and that your point is not just oversimplification of an issue, but a gross by planetary magnitudes oversimplification of an issue. Just mathematically speaking, the average person and the average billionaire are not even close to the same kind of person in economic terms. It’s just completely unreasonable to even remotely think they are. The numbers are just too far apart, to even attempt this argument in good faith.
This is a great point, and the same logic applies to someone who’s destitute vs someone with the median net worth of about $100,000. The average person could give away half of their net worth to feed a bunch of people in the developing world and it wouldn’t ruin their life, but we don’t. We’re all less guilty of ignoring the suffering of others that a billionaire is, but not without blame.
The average person could give away half of their net worth to feed a bunch of people in the developing world and it wouldn’t ruin their life
Maybe the average person in YOUR social circle lol
I love when people say something highly specific to their social class but frame it as “everyone”. Bubbles, man.
If the average American gave away half their net worth they would be giving away any hope of retirement. If the average billionaire gave away half their net worth they would still be a billionaire.
I’m sorry, but being able to feed yourself and dedicate decades of your life saving for a home, is not comparable to having multiple homes, and going on holidays for half of the year.
Why aren’t you giving yours away? Same reason as the rest of us. Pretty disingenuous and hypocritical to call people out on that.
The majority of people of adequate means have more than the vast number of people below that status. Most of them are probably hedging their bets against misfortune or retirement, and the former can wipe out most of the advantages they had, and the ability to actually attain the latter is pipe dream for most people.
Point being, there’s a huge difference between someone with multiple lifetime’s worth of money hoarded that would afford food and shelter to tens of thousands of people and still not hurt their ability to enjoy life vs the person who is trying to shore up the minimum barrier between themselves and poverty and prepare for the day they can’t work anymore. For a lot of us that’s a pretty tough goal to reach.
This logic quickly breaks down at scale. What we’re talking about is people so rich, that if they payed a percentage of their money equivalent to the average person’s 1 euro, they would create a significant difference in the world somewhere, but they don’t.
This to me is without question being a bad person, no one needs or has any use for such an unimaginable amount of money.
How is the take hypocritical? Having a roof over your head and money to spend on nice things isn’t the same as having enough money to live 10 lives and never run out. You’ve drawn parallels that quite literally don’t exist.
I have all these things because of subsidies and welfare, or I’d be out on the street because I’m a disabled older person on SSDI. And even these things are a pittance, barely allow me to make ends meet, and are always in danger of being cut or completely gutted by the rich fucks hoarding all the money. So yeah, I think multi millionaires and billionaires are bad people by default.
No.
I think if a good person were to amass half a billion dollars they would spent enough of it on charity that they could never become a billionaire. So there are no good billionaires, but perhaps a few good millionaires moving to ex-millionaire.
Moving to ex-millionaire? A million isn’t even enough to retire in the US.
Yeah that math is a little outdated. I think the “you have too much money” range has gone up to around $3-5 million now.
I think that’s still far too low. If you own even a moderately successful small-medium sized business then you can get to the point where you have more than that.
In personal wealth? Or does the wealth belong to the business?
Business investments or cash reserves or whatever are waaay beyond the scope of this discussion. That would have more to do with antitrust law and what a fair C suite compensation is.
If you started a small business and are wildly successful to the point that you, personally, have $7 million dollars? Then yes, you have too much money.
It’s not “this is the amount of money a person starting from nothing can achieve”.
It’s “this is more money than any one person ever needs, regardless of where it came from”.
$7 million really isn’t obscene money. If someone has a successful business and retires at 50 years old with $7 million in the bank, assuming they live to 90 that’s only $175k per year. Depending on where you live that can range anywhere from very comfortable to barely getting by. Of course, you could invest it and assuming 4% annual yield that’s $280k per year, which is the right way to do it. I personally have no issue with someone reaping the rewards of their success. I also think that the rich people hate is misplaced. Why are people mad at the wealthy for not picking up the government’s slack, instead of being mad at the government for slacking in the first place?
An aspect of the government not slacking is taxing wealth people and high earners more.
$280k per year
More money than any one person needs. Obviously not as obscene as the ultra wealthy, but there’s a cutoff point somewhere in the $150k-200k range where you don’t get any extra happiness out of money, it’s just pure greed amassing more.
Tax them how though? Honestly, most billionaires don’t take a massive salary, many of them have an official salary that is wholly unimpressive. I think Bezos’ official salary as CEO of Amazon was under $100k. And I am firmly against the idea of a wealth tax because that means you’re taxing someone on money that they don’t have. If I find a painting at goodwill that turns out to be worth $100 million, should I be expected to pay taxes on that $100 million even though I only make $20/hour? That would be totally unfair, you’d be taxing me on money I don’t have.
My thoughts as well, pretty much exactly what I meant in my post.
if you’re a good person, you wouldn’t be rich.
Hardly any millionaires become ex-millionaires by choice, it’s that difference that can help distinguish the ‘good ones’ from the ‘not good ones’. If they chose that route through donation, charity, whatever it may be, they are good. If it had to be ripped away from them through just natural shitty circumstances, and otherwise would keep being hoarded, not so much.
I’m probably more on the extreme than most people here but I don’t completely agree with some of the things others say on here. I do see that in our system, the kind of person and the things that you have to do to attain that kind of money requires that you be a sociopath. There are certain points on the path to that kind of wealth where you consciously make decisions that are unethical.
What that looks like is making the conscious decision to fire thousands of people, real people who have families to feed, health insurance they may depend on their employment which in the end which ultimately simply boils down to wanting to have a bigger profit margin.
I mean even just thinking about it—when you have
much more money than anything for one single person to do with, why hoard it when there’s so much you can do in the world with it? The moment you begin to care for things beyond yourself is the moment you realize that no matter how much money in the world you attain, there still would never be enough left over for you to be able to be wealthy.I think a mistake in thought you might be making is that people are not simply “good” or “bad.” I 100% agree with @UziBobuzi that hoarding more wealth than you or your descendants could ever reasonably spend is a “bad thing.” And maybe that’s a “very bad thing,” that would tend to cast a dark shadow on other “good” things the person might do. Still, those good things are not erased; they still exist, and should not be subtracted.
Another important concept is that, while there is a lot of overlap, a person’s actions are not the entirety of who they are. We all have bad habits, and regrets, and other shortcomings that we are fully aware of and have difficulty rising above. That doesn’t make us bad people, it just makes us people.
I disagree. Sometimes, due to your particular circumstances, life forces duties and responsibilities on you. If you choose to become a police officer, but you’re too cowardly to protect children from getting shot, that is a bad act and you are a bad person for doing it. If you are born into wealth, you are obligated to help the less fortunate. If you don’t do it, that is a bad act and makes you a bad person. It would take a LOT of other good acts to atone for that.
Thank you for disagreeing, and I will further disagree!
I don’t think that it’s correct to do basic addition and subtraction (as in The Good Place) to determine whether someone is a “bad person.” People are complicated, and people can change, for better or worse. Of course, we need to make judgments about who people are, including ourselves, but my judgment about whether a given person is “good” or “bad” is not necessarily objective truth.
In fact, I don’t think it ever can be objective truth, because I don’t think there is a universal arbiter of such things. The farther away from the center line you get, the more general agreement you’ll find: Fred Rogers was good, Hitler was bad. But as you get closer to the middle ground, things get fuzzier. Thomas Jefferson was … complicated. He was clearly brilliant, and held some very progressive positions in his time. And he owned slaves. Was he good? Bad? I don’t think you can boil Jefferson down quite like that. Looking at people in black and white abandons important nuances, and causes us to discard important concepts or embrace dangerous ones.
I agree with both of you.
I think we differ in what we consider extreme. A billion dollars isnso much money, I consider that extreme. Not to Hitler or Stalin levels of course, but closer to that than the middle.
If you’re hoarding money that could be saving lives, you didn’t directly kill anyone, but you have some culpability.
I think we differ in what we consider extreme.
That falls right into my “Mr. Rogers vs Adolf Hitler” dichotomy example. A billion dollars is so extreme that we both agree on that, and I expect a large number of other people would also agree. Ten dollars is so extreme on the other end of the spectrum that I can predict with very high confidence that we both agree there, too. And when you’re somewhere in the middle, clearly more than average, clearly in the realm of luxury and surplus, then there’s going to be higher levels of disagreement.
That’s why it’s important to have these discussions, because reasonable people can disagree, but for a properly functional society, we need to find out where we do (mostly) agree, so that we can all move forward together through thoughtful compromise.
Beyond the already presented arguments from the utilitarian perspectives and the perspective of active wealth accumulation that requires a lack of morals, I want to offer a perspective on the control that this much money gives you. Since a billion dollars, or even further, the billions of dollars that billionaires have are hard to imagine/visualize, here is a handy visualization which i urge you to scroll through. (you have to scroll to the right)
Now, beyond being simply astonishingly awful because of the amount of good those people choose not to do, it’s evil (I dont like the word in this context but I lack a better one) because of the control these people gain. Having billions of dollars is not just money in the sense you and I think about it. Its control, its capital. Simply through its absurd quantities it gains the emergent property of influencing millions and billions of peoples lifes, often in subtle ways like where factories are built or how resources are allocated, decisions that should by all means have democratic legitimization but are controlled by individuals like feudal lords.
And beyond that, this power influences elections through voters or through plain and simple corruption. But not the kind of small level nepotism we think of where a company wins a bid for some building, but corrpution on a level that influences state legislature and millions of people for decades to come.
No
Many rich people fall into the trap of legitimizing their wealth to themselves the wrong way. Everyone, not just super rich people, had some help during their career. Everyone got lucky at some point too. Connections, inheritances, family friends and so on.
But the wrong way to go about it is to just say, if I can do it and so many others cant, it must be their fault. They must be lazy or stupid or both…
Even people who just won the lottery, so actually really just got lucky, can fall into that trap. And the they start to treat others according to their net worth.
Good people don’t become super wealthy because once they get enough to live comfortably they start sharing it with people around them or people that need help.
In theory, it’s defenitely possible. Let’s imagine a person who inherited 1 billion dollars. How their parents made that wealth has no impact on the morality of the person who inherited it. The only thing that matters is what they do with the wealth afterward.
While your argument is that a good person would give it away, that’s a rather short-sighted approach. If instead, they invest that wealth at a 10% return and donate 99% of the returns to charity after 11 years, they have contributed more than if they would have immediately given away their entire wealth. But they are still considered a billionaire. And they are still making 1 million a year for themselves.
So just because someone has a high net worth doesn’t prevent them from being good. And you don’t have to play any “games” or exploit anyone to stay rich. Obviously, the exact numbers might not match the oversimplified version I presented. So instead of 11 years, it might take 15-20 years to give more than donating everything at once. But if set up correctly this could pay out money to people in need forever. Adjust the payments so that the initial sum keeps up with inflation and you could in theory pay out around 70 million in today’s money a year for eternity.
I think the hazard of temptation that comes from not immediately giving away as much as possible makes this strategy a failure. The longer you have money, the more you get used to having money and acquiring more. How many billionaires have pledged to give away all their wealth, and then surprise! Their kids inherit everything.
Just give it all away ASAP. Get it the fuck out of your hands.
millions to billions of dollars.
2 million and two billion are different worlds.
How rich are we talking about?
If you’re a billionaire, you didn’t get there through hard work and perseverance, you got there by lying, cheating and manipulating others. There’s not one single person in this world who has personally created a billion dollars worth of value. Not Donald Trump, not Elon Musk, not Bill Gates or the Waltons, nobody. The wealth they hoard is generated collectively by their ideas, the work and contributions of their employees, taxpayer funded services like roads and railways that facilitate their ability to do business, the products they use that are produced by other people and companies, etc. If you’re a billionaire, that means somebody else along the way (or many somebodies) isn’t getting their fair share.
Jesus said “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.
And then rich Christians made up some shit about an “eye of the needle gate” to justify keeping their wealth.
