Instigator / Pro
8
1493
rating
6
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#3570

Most of the Top 1% Deserve it

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1709
rating
565
debates
68.23%
won
Description

Good day, Mr. opposition. I hope this to be a fulfilling debate for the both of us.

It has come to my attention that there has been a growing stigma against being rich — or at that, any economic group that is not their own.

The poor make fun of the rich’s laziness and the rich of the poor’s laziness. In-between the middle class who seem to think of the poor lazies and the rich monsters. With this unfortunate divide, it should be in everyone’s best interest to not simply rant among like-minders of how bad the other group is,
but rather directly talk to and understand the other group.

And as a top 1%er, here I offer the chance to do so.

Beginning, I would like to clarify. Though I assume most (emphasize most) of the top deserve their money, I do not however believe all bottoms deserve to be bottoms because it can be thought like this analogy:

Santa’s Elves have been having difficulty making these new, more complex presents like consoles. Due to this, Santa only has 500 presents, but the good kids list has 501 children — each as deserving as the other. Who will be the one unfortunate child to not get this gift?

I hope this analogy clarifies that most tops deserve top, but not all bottoms deserve bottom.

Alright, now we begin.

Commencing, money — as we all know — is not simply given out to whoever asks for it. If someone has money, they’ve had to have done something to gain it. Let us go through the path of a top 1%er who has gotten there without starting any business or performing any businesslike money gains.

This means they will *likely* not be making any more money that 50$ an hour — I will try to be as liberal as I can for the benefit of the doubt. This top 1%er is doing the same amount of work as a bottom 50%er, yet the top has much more money than the bottom. What gives? Since they both have the same income, it can only be due to spending smarter. As the expression goes, work smarter not harder.

“But surely this is a rare scenario. After all top 1% is so much money,” one may ask. However, the top 1% is people who have 35k to their name. Not to mention top 5%’s minimum plummets to 5k. You may be closer to top 1% than you think.

From own experience, the more pay one’s job gives, the harder the job is. Therefore, I will turn the difficulty to high and assume a person makes 30 an hour. That is already a whopping 438k in 365 weeks. One would need to save 8% of their money in 7 years to be in the top. How about 20 an hour? 292k in 365 weeks, 12% in 7 years.

There is a simple plan for anyone to be top 1% by 25 or even sooner.

“If it’s that simple, why isn’t everyone doing it?”
Great question. Because people like spending.
Let us dig into this link some:

https://current.com/blog/the-psychology-of-money-saving-and-spending-habits/

This shows how majorly one’s attitude about saving plays into how much one saves.
Thinking that one doesn’t make enough money to save leads to one wasting more money. This unfortunate-ness is positively rewarded by our brain who loves shiny new things and instant reward.

Look at your past month’s spending, check every item and ask yourself if that really was a necessary buy.

Now we go to the tops who got there through business like means. It should be noted how brutalising and mentally torturous starting a business is. Spending 16 hours a day with routine nights of no sleep. It is an absolutely destroying process to get a business in float for the the first year. I know many owners who *all* share the same story.
Not to mention that in some cases the business owner themselves will be required to partake in the labor of the businesses itself.

—— I would like to controversially mention that first hand experience has shown that managerial work much harder than labor work. This goes with the trend with harder jobs getting more pay. ——

I will like to finish off by responding to a popular argument, “You need a rich family to become rich.”
To this I question but a few words:
Who started it?

-->
@RationalMadman

If you think any definitions I have used is wrong, you can directly say why it is wrong, not to get all implicit like this. If you refuse to clarify, I will keep assuming I am right until I have been proven wrong in a future time.

-->
@Intelligence_06

LMAO! The only person pretending is you.

-->
@RationalMadman

I do. And I'm tired of pretending it's not.

-->
@Intelligence_06

I'm sure you have people who find what you post fascinating, such as oromagi, but personally I find the stuff you post very cringey and annoying.

Like do you think you are clever to go to every single fucking debate about deserve or allow and go 'ooooh but what if they technically deserve or allow under my extreme redefinition'?

You know what, all definitions are exploitable, and a lack of definitions is the most exploitable. Unlike the working class, the definitions won't feel like they are being exploited.

If people deserve to eat meat, then capitalists "deserve" their money due to their money being made by legal methods(even though exploiting the working class isn't what you would call moral). As for non-capitalist rich people such as Kylie Jenner: They don't even actively exploit people, they just get unnecessarily large amounts of money for doing stuff. Maybe they do, because they are legally making money(although also amorally) Should they have this amount of money? No.

-->
@RationalMadman

I don't care about my rating personally, fuck the ego. I debate everything, (such as my prison argument I obviously don't agree with). I don't care about taking losses. Most of the best in any sport or competition almost always have losses as to be undefeated either means you're not human or didn't vs good competition. Look at Muhammad ail. No one considers wilt chamberlain the best basketball player ever despite his numbers being better than Michael Jordan, because he vs'd bums. Simply a modern day athlete in a time where basketball was just beginning.

-->
@Ehyeh

that's why it's important for Pro to have made it something like the 20k chars he did and why the 10k limit on DDO was crippling.

Don't need to support me but thanks, I am always ready to lose, it's what separates me from the other '1%' on this website itself ;) I've already dropped out of those rankings thanks to how readily I accept vs what you saw me at 2nd place when you joined the website, that's just how I roll. Picking solely easy and safe battles is pointless when this isn't my money on the line.

If we were getting paid for our rating, I'd of course be mimicking the other cowards or alternatively baiting them into high vs high clashes (and readily accepting like I did vs Misterchris)

The reason I don't accept vsing Oromagi is that he always picks topics that are slanted in Pro's favour, scientifically or based on evidence and cripples Con's ability to talk against him by spamming so many facts and bullet-point extensions that the accepter of the debate drowns.

-->
@RationalMadman

I find debates like these shaky, who constitutes who deserves what? hard work? For me personally, no matter how someone attains their wealth, it doesnt justify the fact that through being a billionaire you make a family go hungry. There can only be so much money in the economy after all, so the less its spread out the more the ones at the top perpetuate suffering and poverty. But i digress, i hope you win.

-->
@Ehyeh

I didn't come expecting an easy battle and this topic doesn't allow either side to sit back and play defensive so I will not do so.

The topic is such nonsense not because of the unfair start they have alone, rather it's due to the way that wealth is able to snowball itself by simply hiring expert stockbrokers, accountants, sublet managers of businesses so on and so forth.

What I mean is that when you are rich enough, you stay rich unless you're a moron, which is also what Pro is trying to agree with and will end up Pro's downfall when we analyse how difficult it is to become rich in the first place vs how easy it is to stay rich while already rich.

An average person has to do their own household chores, a rich person does absolutely 0 of them, imagine the energy and time alone for that.

-->
@RationalMadman

yesterdaystomorrow is better than you're probably expecting! i debated them on vaccines one time, I lost.

-->
@Yesterdaystomorrow

welcome to the site!