camisado84

camisado84 t1_jdjch3m wrote

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but that's patently not true. If you get involved in local politics you would find out how disgustingly little is done to try to influence change.

I was involved with a local campaign that came within 1 or 2% of unseating an senatorial incumbent with a 80k budget, the opposition had 1M+ in the coffers and was in the seat for nearly 3 decades.

4

camisado84 t1_iybo8nc wrote

I'm going to assume you've never been to China and just hear stories from other people.. because that's not remotely accurate. The foxconn employees are making 13k base salary a year.. with a ton of things americans dont get. Keep in mind the cost to live in shenzen is probably 1/3-1/4 the cost to live in a rando tiny town in the US.

They get overtime at 1.5x after 40, 2x weekends, 3x holidays... paid vacation etc.. lol

https://www.businessinsider.com/foxconn-apple-largest-china-iphone-factory-sign-on-bonus-omicron-cny-2022-1

−11

camisado84 t1_ixljs14 wrote

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Can you explain how you feel that even a massive redistribution of wealth would make meaningful changes (and lasting) in everyone's lives from those who have their finances predominantly leveraged? I say it like this, because most rich people aren't exactly hoarding gems and tying up their resources in fictional valuations (a small portion does, of course). Mostly those resources are tied back into the means of production.

Even if you take Musk's fortune at 200bn and redistribute it to every US citizen, that is ~600 bucks a person, one time. But that would require liquidating his leveraged portfolio which is nearly all in a small number of companies, which generate jobs and thus opportunities for individuals who otherwise may not have. Sure, that would free a very tiny amount of resources up for people to do something with, hopefully some of it very handy. But how do you quantify that to justify the execution of such a plan? (e.g. pilot programs that show it would be a net good for everyone)

While those individuals would no doubt spend it in the economy, how do you theorize this creates a net positive long term meaningful impact?

0