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
@Yesterdaystomorrow
@zing_book

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: zing_book // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con, 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
The biggest myth, however, is that they truly did risk that much. As I said, if this debate were about the top 10% of incomes, you'd find self-made people do exist and fill the 5-9% are but when we go top 4, 3, 2 and 1% suddenly it's curious to observe just how huge of a leg-up these people had things in life. the quote proves he point well
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter provides some idea of what their own opinion on the topic is, but does not specifically analyze any points made by either of the debaters, nor does he explain the source or conduct point allocations. The voter must use what the debaters said to form his decision.
**************************************************

-->
@Ehyeh

Thanks for voting but I warn that I think your vote is removable if someone were to report it as you didn't show you have genuinely read Pro's arguments.

You also didn't justify why my sources were the better (used) sources.

-->
@Ehyeh

Debate is over

-->
@Ehyeh

I hope that you will vote on it, considering your avid interest in following it.

There was way too many rounds put in this debate, sadly.

-->
@Yesterdaystomorrow

Even if we were generous and said stock market investors "actively" up-kept people's jobs (which is untrue, they expand companies, not maintain them. People don't invest in non-growing/failing businesses). We could calculate how much someone has invested in the company, and (potentially) divide the money they invested compared to the overall profits to decide how much they "deserve" for their contribution and how much the workers get to keep extra in their pockets based on surplus value created. This makes sure poor workers are not being robbed of the money they generate through surplus value.

-->
@Yesterdaystomorrow

They don't. I've invested in the stock market and the vast, vast majority of people have no say in how the business is run. The only time you do is if you have a majority share in the company, and even then you're not involved in day-to-day running. That responsibility falls to the board of directors and the internal management structure of the company. There's a difference between a CEO and someone who is a shareholder in a company. The only people who fulfil this criteria of having a say in a stock market company are billionaires.

-->
@Ehyeh

…? They do… that’s, sort of how the stock market works.

Whether dodging taxes or legal peril, wealthy Americans often succeed in concealing assets from the government by hiding their money in offshore bank accounts.

Research from the IRS and a group of economists last year found that the top 1% of earners in the U.S. neglect to report 20% of their income — and that random audits almost never detect offshore accounts.

“The level of sneakiness around very wealthy American clients hiding their money abroad is kind of staggering,” best-selling author Patrick Radden Keefe told Yahoo Finance’s editor-in-chief in a new episode of "Influencers with Andy Serwer."

-->
@Yesterdaystomorrow

"But does the dad actively keep up their daughter’s job? Does the dad still have direct control on the daughter’s spending and have the decision weather the daughter is fired?"

Let's assume he doesn't actively keep up with his daughter's job. He just raised her to be healthy. He created her. To compare it then to a CEO, if the father is not entitled materially to his daughter's earnings because he doesn't actively upkeep his daughters' job nor manage her, by that definition, many people who have large swaths of a company's shares are not entitled to materially benefit. Consider the NSDAQ 100. According to your counter-argument, these people are not eligible or deserving of the wealth they earn from the stock market because they have no say in the day-to-day operations of the companies in which they invest into.

-->
@Ehyeh

But does the dad actively keep up their daughter’s job? Does the dad still have direct control on the daughter’s spending and have the decision weather the daughter is fired?

Sure, the dad *could* be deserving of something in return for the time they catered to the daughter.
However, most find that the love and joy they spend with their daughter is enough.

The analogy does bring up a good thought process, very nicely thought, but it is a rather limited connection to the point.

-->
@Yesterdaystomorrow

" Say the company owner of McDonald’s gets 10 dollars a year per worker. Only 83 cents per month I stress. The owner will have generated 2 million dollars per year.

The top 1% creates most all the jobs and logically gets a share of the job. They owner created the job and therefore should be given some time part from it in return — or at the very least they certainly earned the money."

If i created my daughter, and she later decided to create an onlyfans, am i entitled to a cut of the money she generates since i created her? I gave her the ability to work that job, after all. I don't see why after a while a CEO shouldn't just get a nice fixed wage, which is exceptionally comfortable but not enough to make others not have food on the table.

I simply use this analogy to show you just because someone gave someone an opportunity for something and sacrificed time for you to have that doesn't mean you should owe them. This demonstrates either your thought process is incorrect or you never concluded a symmetry breaker between a CEO-employee relationship and other sorts of relationships of this same created nature.

https://youtu.be/Wh3t49NsWBA

-->
@RationalMadman

fuck me, that was brutal rationalmadman, amazing argument.

-->
@RationalMadman

That is not what I mean.

I just wanted you to understand what I meant by ‘most’ in order to avoid unnecessary argument and a waste of time.

Also so I’m not forced into an awkward position of dismissing one of your arguments merely by saying, “that is not what I meant.”

-->
@Yesterdaystomorrow

Your meaning not matching my meaning doesnt lead to punishment for Con, it leads to a battle to convince the voter that our interpretation is more applicable.

-->
@christianm

Trade can and should happen in Socialism too. But basically, my understanding is: one individual should produce his own food. This greatly increases the standard of living, as not only he has the incentive to produce quantity, but also quality as he is producing for himself.

People dont always do whats best for them. And sometimes they cant, as they dont own the means of production.

If I own no land, but only a small appartment, its hard for me to produce food for myself, so I have to sell my labour to the capitalist and work extra time to get paid to buy food.

If I have a land, I just need to buy some seeds, basic tools, maybe tree plants, and I can produce food for myself. It wont even take much of my time, and I will have food for which I know is healthy as I produced it. Then after 20 minutes of daily work necesarry to produce food which saves me at least 100$ every month, if I live in a commune I can go to factory owned by the workers and work there earning extra money.

Compared to that, someone who doesnt own means of production has to pay:
1) food - at least 100$ every month. This is assuming he is a vegan and only buys high caloric food to save money.
2) pay with his labour to the rich. This is calculated by amount of products produced for the rich

Even if rich only exploit me for 100$ a month, and the lack of land another 100$ thats total of 200$ every month. Which is a lot and I dont want to pay it.

So, you asked which Korea? DPRK obviously. They may not have the best economy, but there is something about their leader and their country that warms my heart.

-->
@Best.Korea

If people were better off making their own things instead of specializing in a trade, they wouldn't get jobs

-->
@Best.Korea

So which Korea is the best one?

-->
@christianm

Yes, I do support Communism, Socialism whatever you call it, but in a way that I have described in one of my debates. Its Socialism managed by the workers where workers produce for themselves only and not for the rich.

-->
@christianm

Actually, I do get poorer.
If I get paid, its not the same value as in the case where I just produce cars for myself.
Working takes time, and if all workers spend half of their time producing for the rich, its obvious they will only use other half of their time to produce for themselves.

Even if they get paid, they will still be able to buy only half of what they produced.

If I produce 10 expensive cars for the rich, even if I get paid for my work the fact remains I would be richer if I instead produced 100 cheaper cars for the people. And people would get richer too, as ordinary people would have more cars.
More labour force would be free to produce other things for the ordinary people, hence I would have more.

To make it once again clear:
There are 3 people.
One of them is rich
The other two are workers
If two workers produce 1 expensive car for the rich and two cheap cars for themselves, they are being exploited even if they get paid, as they only get paid enough to buy 2 cheap cars they themselves produced.

If there was no rich, the two workers would have more time to produce for themselves and would have more than 2 cheap cars.

Economy has to be observed in general treating the rich as group 1, workers as group 2.
Once you get that, you understand that workers spend part of their time working for the rich and producing wealth for them, leaving less time for workers to produce for themselves. No amount of money paid to the workers changes that, as there is a limited number of products available for them.

-->
@Ehyeh

I agree with some of that, but I don't think it's the government's job to decide if people deserve something. People who inherit money should still get to keep it, for example.

-->
@christianm

they earned it but i would necessarily say they deserve it. Having said that i don't think anyone deserves anything. I have no contract given to me i can find in my cupboard which god gave me on what i should and shouldn't expect in this life. I simply want what is pragmatically the best for each individuals personal development.

-->
@Best.Korea

Not if you get paid and then buy a car. Assembly lines and capitalism made cars many times cheaper.

-->
@Ehyeh

So you agree the 1% earned their money?

To make it simple, if I have to produce 10 cars for the rich its obvious I have less time to produce for my own needs, hence I get poorer.

-->
@christianm

Something can help both parties, and im not saying having amazon is worse than not having it. I'm saying we can have something BETTER something MORE. We don't have to settle for this when there is better alternatives, as the current model is still built on suffering of a certain sect of the population.

-->
@christianm

That link doesn't detract from what I've said so far. I'll say it again, irrespective of what is wrote in that pdf. For rich people to exist, someone must not be rich. Otherwise being rich has no value, meaning it wouldn't exist. Therefore to be rich someone must be poor. Even if good billionaires exist, many aren't. To get to the pinnacle of business, on average its going to filter out less ruthless money hungry businesses. Its an immoral model where the more evil are generally destined to win, the only time this doesn't happen is in brand new fields where there isn't a monopoly of evil already (like bill gates with computers). So once more the idea that it can sometimes be fair and sometimes not doesn't justify it for most people. We can do what billionaires do, with the innovation but have the money more spread out with less risks of these big businesses bribing politicians and not working in the peoples interests as much as we would.

Just like a monarch may work in the peoples interest but they will less so then a democracy.

Economy of society is limited. If the workers have to produce for the rich, they will have less being produced for themselves.
Cars would be even cheaper if we didnt waste labour to produce expensive cars for the rich.
Read my previous comment.

-->
@Ehyeh

https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/econ_focus/2005/spring/pdf/jargon_alert.pdf

The total amount of wealth is not fixed. Money is simply a store of value. But other items, such as cars, also have value. So if a car is produced at a low cost and sold, both parties become better off. Ford example in link above.

If a farmer selling food helps the seller and not the buyer, why would anyone buy food? If it helps the buyer and not the seller, why would anyone sell food? Obviously, it helps both parties, so who is it hurting if the economy is zero-sum?

-->
@christianm

"Billionaires exist because others are poor. How can someone be rich if no one was poor? we live in a world of duality, and if poor people didnt exist rich people couldn't either. Its logically 1 to 1 that bill gates takes the meals of the poor. Just because some billionaires temporarily uplift people, doesn't mean the money doesn't come back to them in the long term."

there can only be so much money in an economy otherwise inflation occurs, which makes wealth worthless. Its common sense.

-->
@Ehyeh

How is Bill Gates making people go hungry?

-->
@christianm

Bill gates can fight malaria, but it still doesn't deny the perspective that any one individual should not have this much power if it takes away from others. People who defend billionaires simply because they do good deeds is akin to someone defending monarchism and wanting it simply because there's potential for a good king/Queen. The potential negatives outweigh the potential benefits.

How about everyone has more money and let them decide if they want to put it into a certain charity or not? you still cant seem to argue against the idea that the fact bill gates is a billionaire he's literally making people go hungry simply through being so wealthy. How can you justify that simply because he's trying to get a vaccine for malaria? a collectivised group of workers could do exactly what bill gates is doing (in a worker co-op) except now the money is more evenly distributed. I think most people are in denial and don't want to make decisions for themselves so they let big daddy corps make decisions for them with their money.

Billionaires exist because others are poor. How can someone be rich if no one was poor? we live in a world of duality, and if poor people didnt exist rich people couldn't either. Its logically 1 to 1 that bill gates takes the meals of the poor. Just because some billionaires temporarily uplift people, doesn't mean the money doesn't come back to them in the long term.

Owner doesnt create the job.
Materials used in production are produced by other workers, not owner.
Factories arent made by the rich, but by the workers.
If you buy a factory, that doesnt mean you created it. If you pay for the construction of the factory, the workers will construct it, not you.
Money in capitalism is basically the control tool. Its like saying that Pharaon constructed the pyramids, when he was just in position to control and order their construction.

Just because you order someone to do something, doesnt mean you did it.

I will give you example of two mini societies.

Society A consists of 3 people.
1 of them is rich
Other 2 are workers
Workers produce 2 chocolate bars each.
But they each have to give 1 bar to the rich, leaving each of them with just 1 bar of chocolate.

Society B consists of 3 people.
All 3 people are self governing workers.
Each produces 2 bars of chocolate.
Each has 2 bars of chocolate for himself.

Hence, in society without the rich, worker gets more wealth for himself.
Society A is the model of capitalist society.

Management done by the rich is actually rather poor management of the society. But even if it was good, they get paid 1000x more than a single worker.

Workers can manage themselves. They just need a society in which something like that is possible.

-->
@christianm

Please keep the comments relevant.

-->
@Best.Korea

Which is the best Korea? You support communism but also hate censorship.

-->
@Best.Korea

But it should be noted the owner handles many of the things for the worker — such as logistical problems.

Not to mention creating the job in the first place for the worker.

Workers have to work not only to sustain themselves, but also have to do extra work to sustain the rich and build for them their fancy houses and other expensive things. Hence, the existing of the rich is the cause that makes others poorer.
Capitalism is basically just an advanced feudalism.

-->
@Ehyeh

Bill Gates is fighting Malaria. The Gates foundation is actually one of the most effective; he and Melinda were some of the first to search for the most effective forms of charity. Once you've invented a vaccine for malaria (which they've invested a lot in) it doesn't get un-invented. He makes more money, but so long as he's doing a good thing and he's not stealing the money, I don't have any complaints.

Besos didn't claim all of a public resource the way Nestle did (like coconuts). He networked with book retailers and invested in infrastructure to sell books online. Claiming the coconuts in the first place is ridiculous, creating a company isn't. People have faster shipping and jobs. Amazon workers get payed $15 an hour, which Bernie wanted. Besos is a net benefit.

So I don't agree that billionaires become rich in a way that makes others poor.

-->
@christianm

I don't agree. Bill gates gives money away, but eventually the money comes back too him. There's no actual systemic changes that these people do to stop them from being unnecessarily rich, nothing to stop the long term suffering they create through their economic wealth Its all temporary stuff. If they weren't so rich in the first place, he wouldn't have to give to charities, the people could buy things for themselves and not live on food stamps. All giving to these charities does is numb the economic issue and pretend it doesn't exist, not solve it.

"Every time someone works for Amazon, it's a net benefit."

That doesn't make it moral. Assuming you crash landed on a dessert island, some guy wakes up before you and he claims all the coconuts on the island. He says he will only give you the coconuts if you suck his dick. Do you have a realistic choice not to suck his dick? in the grand scheme of things sucking his dick is a net benefit for you in the long run. Right?

If the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Of course fixing capitalism and making it fair is impossible. Its like saying you can make feudalism fair. You cant. Its not possible for an exploitation to be fair.

-->
@Ehyeh

Some billionaires do give their money away, even more than middle-class people. I don't think it's immoral to be rich if you're earning the money. Every time someone works for Amazon, it's a net benefit. Otherwise they wouldn't agree to work there.

-->
@christianm

I feel like you can make a marked distinction between someone who's middle class and a CEO of a corp. Now all of what you said is technically correct, there's just some massive symmetry breakers which make them pretty distinct and one arguably far more immoral.

-->
@RationalMadman

It is likely a good idea to elaborate on what I mean by most deserving before you post a mislead argument and are unfairly punished for it.

For roughly 600 people are billionaires (likely more from when the data was released).
Such a small group I do believe have more money than called for.

Another definition of most I would like to put out there is those who exploit loopholes (subtle glare at Trump).

I do however have some redeeming arguments for these billionaires, but, for the most case, they are open grounds for you to shoot them down.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Perhaps this debate is about the definition of deserving rather than whether the top 1% earned their money with truth.

Perhaps you are demanding something to be how it already is.

-->
@Ehyeh

Even by being middle-class you "cause" people to suffer, since money could be donated to help people. The most effective charities can save a life for $4,500. It depends on how you define cause and if by inaction you are actually responsible for their death.

Also the economy is not zero-sum. The money supply can remain constant but products themselves have value and are often developed by large corporations. Also the cost of living can decrease if products become cheaper over time. The technology we have today is vastly better than what we had 100 years ago, and arguably due to the same system that created billionaires.

A New York Times special investigation revealed that President Trump received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire over the course of his life — income that he shielded from inheritance taxes. The Times report concluded that Trump had participated in “dubious tax schemes . . . including instances of outright fraud.” Rich crooks can make a lot of money by not working hard.

-->
@RationalMadman

I do sometimes. Sometimes my opponent clearly can have massive advantages regarding definitions and I can choose to not see them before they see it.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Sit and read as debaters who aren't pricks about semantics try and have a genuine discourse.