show me some billionaires that never took advantage of anyone to get their billions
You can’t prove a negative, screwball. It’s literally impossible to prove “never took advantage of anyone” about anyone, billionaire or not.
Not that you aren’t almost certainly using an overbroad definition of ‘take advantage’, on top of it.
I’m down to change my view.
No, you aren’t. People who are don’t play these kinds of semantic games.
I just don’t see getting to a billion without someone being taken advantage of on the way though.
Which of course is a stupid comparison indicative of economic ignorance, because wealth does not grow linearly for anyone who doesn’t stuff their money under a mattress.
Poe’s law, sorry for going off on you.
It’s a very common tactic in the scumbag playbook.
Why are men so absolutely abhorrent at taking criticism?
Uh, lol…meanwhile, women are so hostile to criticism that massively-successful TV shows are made out of that premise (TV shows whose primary audience are women, by the way, ironically enough).
“So stop getting so pissy about me assuming you’re a gangbanger, Jamal.”
There is no way you’re actually dumb enough to think those are representative of what the expectation norms are for either sex.
So stop being disingenuous.
There’s a long, documented, researched, history of men being raised to expect things from women.
I find the implication that there is not also a long, documented, researched, history of women being raised to expect things from men, quite amusing in its ignorance.
Someone got cucked and is bitter about it 😂
What a colossally callous and heartless thing to say.
Being cheated on is a horrendous betrayal. “Bitter” is the least on the list of absolutely justified emotions to feel in response to that.
I’m not saying women are universally awful or anything.
You obviously aren’t, but it speaks volumes all on its own that you felt there was a need to state that, only bolstering your other points about this one-sidedness.
You’re massively ignorant of just how little the world cares about the suffering of males. The same amount of harm to a female will, ten out of ten times, generate more sympathy and outrage than that same harm to a male.
When Boko Haram attacked hundreds of thousands of children, the only reports that generated any outrage were the ones talking only about girls being kidnapped, even though they murdered all the boys. Hell, when the victims were all male, the sex wasn’t even stated in the articles, it’s just “students” etc. But every single time girls were victimized, you’d better believe “girls” or “schoolgirls” was explicitly used. The reason is simple–people in general actually give a shit about girls.
The empathy gap between the sexes is very real, and your comment is a perfect example of it.
You could not have proven their point more strongly if you tried.
Fact is, even if it was “always a man”, the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of men don’t do it, making the assumptions about men not only immoral, but inaccurate.
White supremacists use the exact same logic, pointing at crime statistics, to justify prejudice toward black people. This is the male sex version of “around blacks never relax”, nothing more, don’t pretend otherwise.
Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morels are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a six cents when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn’t take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It’s clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the fax. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother’s mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
Should have kept reading:
The national average starting wages for Aldi workers will be set at $18 an hour and $23 an hour for warehouse workers.
That’s just being read wrong, it’s not written like a “save up to $10” kind of line. The “up” just describes the change (i.e. ‘the starting wage is going up; becoming $X’). Within the article, it’s completely unambiguous:
The national average starting wages for Aldi workers will be set at $18 an hour and $23 an hour for warehouse workers.
what if we didnt have money
It’d immediately be re-invented.
Money is a unit of measure, a necessary go-between because barter just doesn’t work on any but the smallest scales. If I need a root canal and I don’t possess any goods or access to any services the dentist wants/needs, what am I supposed to do?
How incredibly naive.
The fact is, one thing has pretty much nothing to do with the other. The wealth gap between the wealthiest individuals on Earth and the rest of us is not the cause of poverty; in fact, as you go back in time long term, the wealth gap shrinks, while overall poverty goes up.
And what you mention about Space X is one example of the ‘rising ride lifts all ships’ phenomena that makes things better for all of us overall long term.
The fact that fulfilling three extremely-doable conditions: graduating high school, not getting married before the age of 21, and not having children before getting married, make your chances of being impoverished as an adult next to nothing, makes it even more obvious that billionaires are not the cause of poverty.
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of increases in net worth of billionaires is created wealth (as in, if it didn’t happen, that wealth wouldn’t belong to someone else, it just wouldn’t exist at all).
The real issue is the eradication of poverty. It’s impossible to prevent someone from being at the top, and that top being exponentially higher than the average, in a society where wealth is so ‘create-able’ (and the fact that it is is a good thing, imo!), that position is always going to exist. But as we’ve seen over the past 50-100 years, it is very possible for that wealth gap to not only exist, and grow, and have the percentage of human beings who are impoverished shrinking, at the same time.
My man I don’t think I give a shit where you think I belong.