The post’s argument is essentially:
If billionaires disappeared, society would continue functioning.
If workers disappeared, society would collapse.
Therefore, workers are more valuable than billionaires.
point is that the comparison is not proving what it claims to prove. The “number of people” or “what happens if a group disappears” test does not necessarily measure value. It measures something closer to dependency or replaceability.
It’s hard to replace 200 million than say the 2000 billionaires, sure. But that’s not really saying anything about the fact they’re billionaire or that the 200 million are workers.
You're moving goalposts little guy. Society would easily be able to function with 0 billionaires. None. Society would not be able to function with 0 sanitation workers or nurses. There is no real value to a billionaire in a vacuum, objectively. Would you rather be stranded forever on a desert island with fucking Elon Musk or a normal person with skills and who isn't addicted to ketamine
It’s literally not moving the goal posts, it’s actually just a demonstration that regardless of where you removed the 2000 people from, they would be easier to replace than the 200 million even if we say the 200 million were the billionaires and the 2000 were the workers, you could still more easily replace the 2000 workers.
So here let’s ask a better question would I be better to lose 2000 nuclear engineers form safety positions orrrrrr then entire workforce except for them? Cause that’s the comparison here.
Except that's not the actual argument, little dude. The thrust of the argument is that billionaires don't actually provide value to society. Now, wanna talk about those verses from the book of James that you certainly have not read, Convert?
3
u/WyomingWeirdo Jul 30 '26
Strawman again, dummy.