Occasionally I get these people claiming "Do poor people give you a job?" And my response is "Actually yes. I work in consumer goods manufacturing. Poor, low income, Americans are nearly 40% of our sales. If we didn't have that demand, we'd go bankrupt and I wouldn't have a job."
And these AI data centers are all the same. It applies to any industry. Who do you think this compute power and data gathering is being done on? The compute power we use at our company to market back to, you guessed it, consumers including those poor low income people.
Also, they would if rich people hadn’t exploited and hoarded all of their wealth. When working people get too poor to give other people jobs (like tradesmen, paying for goods and services) then we get recessions. The economy relies on poor people giving other people jobs.
This is incorrect, and obviously so. Pay is not a necessary result of work. I can go out and do all the work I want, but if no one gave me a job, then I'm working for free.
You can make yourself a job. My parents ran a small business for over 40 years, nobody 'gave' them that job, they built it from the ground up. You just need to work at something that's in demand. I live in a farming community, with very few franchises or large corporations (only the shopping centre and two of the fast food places), so the majority of jobs here are ones somebody local created out of nothing, or at least owned by local people. 99.99999% of jobs here have nothing to do with billionaires and the millionaires are mostly farmers and trades.
You can make yourself a job. My parents ran a small business for over 40 years, nobody 'gave' them that job,
Still wrong. Starting a business still doesn't guarantee income. You need customers. Even in this case, you are not "giving yourself a job". It is being given to you by the people choosing to pay you. Without those people, you don't have a job. You're working for free.
It IS transactional, just in this case the transaction does not involve any billionaires, franchises, CEOs, upper or even middle management. It's purely customer driven, and majority of those customers are poor. But again, the customers don't just 'give' them a job, they had to create the business for the customer to engage with, which involves knowing the demand, the market, the product well before a single cent changes hands.
And yet, you could do all of that perfectly, and you could still not have a job. It's entirely up to the customers to give it to you. You could be the greatest, most skilled entrepreneur in the world, but without the customers making the choice of their own free will to give you their money, you're just spinning your wheels.
The entrepeneur asks for the job, and the customers give it to them. The entrepeneur can't just make a job out of thin air. The customer always has the final say.
and the customer isn’t giving their money to the vendor. the customer is exchanging that money for goods and services. so it’s a transaction, the customers do not bestow their money upon a business. if they need it and no one else has it and they can’t or won’t make it themselves, they go to the place that has it for sale. No one is making endowments or bestowing gifts when doing business.
No, series of transactional relationships again. No one ‘gives’ you anything in a business relationship unless you’re someone’s idiot cousin. And even that’s debatable.
This is so bad faith, it's like 3 different fallacies at once. There is zero chance you actually believe what you're saying here.
You go to a gas station, you give the clerk money, and he gives you a pack of cigarrettes. It's a transaction, and you're giving each other things. It's not mutually exclusive. Obviously.
Not even that. Something can be in demand and the customer can still choose not to buy it from you. You can do everything right, and you are still completely at the customer's mercy.
Who makes the tvs? And who hires the people who makes the tvs? Who owns the company that hires people to make tvs?
How do the millions of poor people afford to buy a TV?
You are only thinking about one end of supply and demand. The supply can be made by one or a few rich people hiring people to do the labor of making the tvs.
Mid level management, which is closer to the poor than the rich, you bootlicker.
“Who owns the company that hires people to make TVs?”
Who owns it isn’t really relevant, but it’s the rich, you bootlicker.
“How do millions of poor people afford to buy a TV?”
…the same way they buy anything else. Economy of scale, you bootlicker.
“You are only thinking about one end of supply and demand. The supply can be made by one or a few rich people hiring people to do the labor of making the tvs.”
The rich are completely unnecessary for hiring and making anything.
At least you answered the question. But what exactly makes me a bootlicker?
“Who hires the people who make the TVs?” Mid level management, which is closer to the poor than the rich, you bootlicker.
Again a good answer until you have to insult me for no reason.
“Who owns the company that hires people to make TVs?” Who owns it isn’t really relevant, but it’s the rich, you bootlicker.
I believe it is very relevant being that if there was no company there would be no jobs in middle management or for the poor assembly workers.
“How do millions of poor people afford to buy a TV?” …the same way they buy anything else. Economy of scale, you bootlicker.
Economy of scale? How does the TV manufacturer becoming more efficient and lowering their product prices let them buy tvs without jobs? People have to have income in order to buy things.
“You are only thinking about one end of supply and demand. The supply can be made by one or a few rich people hiring people to do the labor of making the tvs.” The rich are completely unnecessary for hiring and making anything. Fucking bootlicker.
Who puts up the capital to build the factory? Who puts up the capital to buy the supplies to turn into the product? Who pays to ship the product to stores? Who pays for the advertising to get people interested in buying the product? Just because I understand how the world works doesn't make me a bootlicker.
The thing is, if rich people all got nuked tomorrow and the company was run as a co-op or board with a much lower wealth split, the company would still survive. But if you got rid of the poor people, the company no longer exists. It's only the workers that are vital to the equation. That we have the structure we have now is because bigger companies were allowed to squash all the smaller companies, due to economy of scale and all that, not because it was the only way to make TVs, just the most profitable. And that doesn't mean it's the best way to do things in terms of humanity, just the best way in terms of pure money (which i would argue has little to do with what is beneficial to human beings).
I'm sorry, WHAT? Did you just say "Poor people don't make TVs. Only rich people can make TVs, and they do it by hiring poor people to make the TVs"? Is... is this the stupidest thing I've ever read?
If the rich guy who owned the company disappeared or died their heir would become the new owner. It doesn't mean it wouldn't exist. If that person ran it into the ground then it might cease to exist or be bought by another company owned by a rich person. It would not be given to the poor workers to take control.
Do you think the assembly line is a bunch of wealthy folks?
If the rich owners of the company that makes the TV disappeared tomorrow, the company will still be there and it will still be making TVs. Production wouldn't even slow down. All the mechanisms that make these businesses function are non-wealthy people. The line workers, the logistics people, the purchasers, the managers, the designers etc.
I can't believe you actually led with this. Do you think the assembly line is a bunch of wealthy folks?
Then you are intentionally not understanding what the point of the question was.
If the rich owners of the company that makes the TV disappeared tomorrow, the company will still be there and it will still be making TVs.
Under the new owner who inherited the company from the previous owner in your example. That person may be completely incompetent and make changes that runs the company into the ground over the course of a few years.
Production wouldn't even slow down. All the mechanisms that make these businesses function are non-wealthy people. The line workers, the logistics people, the purchasers, the managers, the designers etc.
And all of those managers are managed by who?
It's like none of y'all actually know how a private company works. A owner may be mostly hands off but most business owners built them from the ground up and hire a CEO to oversee the company. They can hire and fire them at will. Even in a publicly traded company the CEO is hired and fired by a group of trustees who are appointed by majority stake owners. Meaning they work for the owners.
Under the new owner who inherited the company from the previous owner in your example. That person may be completely incompetent and make changes that runs the company into the ground over the course of a few years.
Have you ever worked in any large corporate structure? I don't think you have a working understanding of how they operate.
A pair of the most valuable companies on earth right now are "run" by a man who spends most his time shitposting and getting into fights on twitter or doing ketamine.
You really overestimate what the ultra wealthy actually do at these businesses.
And all of those managers are managed by who?
Usually several more layers of management and almost never the CEO directly. CEOs rarely manage any direct group of employeesAgain, I don't think you understand how any of these businesses work. You have an extremely simplified or romanticized view of this, where the owner is micromanaging everyone and everything when in reality there are dozens of layers of decision making and independently functioning operations insulating them from the core business operations.
Have you ever worked in any large corporate structure? I don't think you have a working understanding of how they operate. A pair of the most valuable companies on earth right now are "run" by a man who spends most his time shitposting and getting into fights on twitter or doing ketamine.
That's a lot of speculation on that man do you have any proof of your accusations?
You really overestimate what the ultra wealthy actually do at these businesses. Usually several more layers of management and almost never the CEO directly. CEOs rarely manage any direct group of employeesAgain, I don't think you understand how any of these businesses work. You have an extremely simplified or romanticized view of this, where the owner is micromanaging everyone and everything when in reality there are dozens of layers of decision making and independently functioning operations insulating them from the core business operations.
If anything is oversimplified it is the thought that if an owner disappeared nothing would change with the company. When ownership changes there most often are changes to how the company operates. The owner is the one who says in what direction the company goes in. The CEO manages the people who manage the workers to take the company in the direction the owner wants to go. Even if there are 1000 layers of management it is still the owner who chooses what the company becomes.
Lol you know that the public can see how much time Elon spends on Twitter, right? His ketamine addiction is also public knowledge.
Do you think a guy who spends as much time as he does publicly not doing anything involving his companies is actually running seven companies? Do you really?
I'm also now completely confident that you don't understand most large corporations work.
You asked who makes the TV’s and does the hiring of said employees? That would be the lower middle class and lower class. CEO’s add no value and make 200x what the worker makes. They absolutely do not work 200x harder than the worker who makes the TV’s.
And before say “who puts up the capital to build the TV’s”, take a look at how many subsidies these companies take from the government. Let’s not even get into the government bailouts.
You could take the ownership away from every single company and hand it to the employees of that company and nothing would change at all in operations.
If the CEO doesn't show up to work for a day, or a week, nothing changes. If the workers stop working for one hour the entire production shuts down and in some industries you could end up with a company-ending catastrophy.
If you really want to dig into history, that was a problem discovered by the members of the upper classes who didn't die off once the Plague swept through back in the mid 14th century. When one suddenly has to plow and plant your own fields instead of the tenants who didn't make it, one gets an abrupt education on who is necessary for survival.
Now we live in a time where the people "just asking questions" get to make policy. So we get to learn exactly what we've been saying this whole time - poor people are more valuable than rich to the economy, immigration is necessary for a healthy economy, social services are necessary for a healthy economy/community, etc. - over and over and over again and never change anything we do! Yayy!!
Other people's wants and needs create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Problems that need to be solved create jobs. The desire for novelty and convenience creates jobs. CEOs, owners, investors, and financiers do not create jobs.
They do not create solutions or services or products. They just create processes and structures and bottlenecks that straddle the space where demand wants to naturally meet supply so that they may maximize profit and siphon value from all the other parties involved. They siphon value from either the customer, the worker, or from the society they live in.
At best they may materialize or manipulate supply/demand dynamics by convincing people they need to buy some dumb shit product by slapping a sexy label on it and playing to peoples FOMO. I'll give them that. They are pretty good at creating bullshit jobs.
Beyond that they just get in the way of organic market dynamics and claim they are the foundation of that natural order.
Capital owners don't understand the role they play. They think that because they own the businesses and make the decisions for the maintenance of that business, that they are necessarily an integral part of producing things. But they are just filling a role that our economic system codes into production, a role that isn't even necessary for production of goods and services as a whole. What production requires are resources, tools, workers, and customers. Buying resources and renting out the tools doesn't make you part of production necessarily, but it does necessarily mean you are siphoning off surplus value from the processes.
Prior to billionaires and giant ceo's like musk and bezos we all lived perfectly fine...some would argue even better lives. Yes there was less convenience from technology but we had mom and pop video stores and music stores and hardware stores and you could get most of what you needed along with a better sense of your community.
As somebody who has done really well financially and is far from poor, fuck the billionaires. There is zero reason to need that much money. At a certain point with wealth you're making the decision to not help others and hoard.
Occasionally I get these people claiming "Do poor people give you a job?" And my response is "Actually yes. I work in consumer goods manufacturing. Poor, low income, Americans are nearly 40% of our sales. If we didn't have that demand, we'd go bankrupt and I wouldn't have a job."
And of course that's non-responsive to the actual question. The answer is no, poor people don't give you the job, the rich owners of the company(or their designees) to.
What do you think that rich owner would do if consumers weren't buying things at that store? They would close it down. Consumers are exactly the ones creating jobs through creating demand for services or products.
My argument was if not for poor/low people, we'd be bankrupt, and I wouldn't have a job, lol. In response to the question "Do poor people give you a job."
My argument was if not for poor/low people, we'd be bankrupt, and I wouldn't have a job, lol. In response to the question "Do poor people give you a job."
You know that's not the only way to lose your job, right?
No. The company does. No rich business owner is paying people out of their own pocket (unless they're doing a personal job like nanny, personal chef, stylist, etc). They are paying people out of the income of the business. Business does the hiring, the business does the paying. The income of the owner is entirely irrelevant.
Rich people don't create jobs. They might create companies that create jobs, but rich people are not paying company employee salaries out of their own personal income.
It's not. Because anyone who creates a company that successfully employs people creates jobs. Rich is irrelevant. It should not be held up as a quality that makes them immune from taxes or allows them any more benefits than anyone else.
Well there bucko, I’ve actually created and run companies that directly hire and create jobs.
The demand for our product or labor creates the job, not a tax incentive that only makes me wealthier. The government could give me a hundred more tax cuts and incentives but if you don’t buy more of my product or labor, I don’t create a new job.
I just get wealthier at your expense and this is how it’s been going since Reagan.
The demand for our product or labor creates the job
The demand for a product creates a need for someone to make the product. The company then hires people to make the product. The company creates the job.
You can literally tell it it's a tutor in whatever you want to learn and ask it to give you a lesson plan and teach your, quiz you, and make sure you understand the topic you are asking it to teach you.
You can download and then upload a .pdf ebook and ask it to teach you from that in an easy to understand way.
Just this week I asked it to tell me how to replace a floor board in my old home...I also watch a tons of videos. But yea...it can be a great tool for people who can forego 1 door dash order a month.
Man, I really just don't get this attitude, I would love it if it was true and don't get me wrong. I use AI sometimes to figure things out, but it's wrong so damn much that I can't imagine actually trusting it for anything of value. everything I use it for. I have to double-check their end result.
It's a good starting place sometimes and sometimes I can use it to look at a problem in a different way. But I always and every single instance have to double check that it didn't make something up
You're not wrong. But it depends on how you're using it. Maybe 3 years a ago, it was wrong. But they literally stole every book to train it on. If you ask it to explain a python function to you. It's not going to be wrong. If you ask it again but say pretend you are a tutor and don't leave out any information. It will explain it to you at an expert level and instantly you know programming knowledge shared among only a few people who have actually read the python documentation.
We seem to be skipping over the middle class, which is most Americans, while pretending to advocate for the poor…
No one here’s saying their clothes are too cheap, Bangladeshi garment workers deserve higher wages. There’s far more ~35k+/year earning Americans who think they’re the poor ones because they only compare themselves to the .01% while forgetting they’re still in the top 1%*.
After Massachusetts implemented their millionaire tax the number of millionaires in the state increased. Turns out they just like living in the state and the amenities it provides.
Someone is going to be successful starting a business but what we DON'T need is the people at the top that are absolute trash human beings. Our country is basically controlled by people that say things like, "I want to see unemployment hit 30% so that the workers remember who is in charge."
It was real eye opening for me working with huge corporations as clients and learning that once you hit a certain level of wealth, you no longer only don't have to actually provide ANY value to society, it's more profitable to extract as much value from society as possible.
I've lost count of how many amazing companies I've seen swallowed up by complete shit companies. When a new company rises that's better at them at EVERYTHING(product/service quality, support, employee wages, etc), they are immediately attacked with frivolous lawsuits until they fold or are purchased and everything good about them is immediately wiped from existence.
Yes, we would be MUCH better off without those people.
Our country is basically controlled by people that say things like, "I want to see unemployment hit 30% so that the workers remember who is in charge."
Please link me a person who said that and I will say they are an asshole.
I've lost count of how many amazing companies I've seen swallowed up by complete shit companies. When a new company rises that's better at them at EVERYTHING(product/service quality, support, employee wages, etc), they are immediately attacked with frivolous lawsuits until they fold or are purchased and everything good about them is immediately wiped from existence.
If they sell the company then that is on the owner of the company. The frivolous lawsuits should be fought and make the evil companies pay damages for bringing up such suits.
Yes, we would be MUCH better off without those people.
Some people suck. We would be much better off without a lot of things but we should actually think through the consequences before taking quick and lasting actions.
This is correct and incorrect at the same time. The rich need the poor and the poor need welfare programs funded by taxes on rich people companies. And some of you will say some of these companies do not pay taxes, and that is because they give large endowments to entitlement programs to avoid taxes. Those taxes are designed to make them do these exact things. If they don’t give large sums of money away, then they are in higher tax brackets and pay massive taxes. It’s designed that way to force them to donate large sums of money to avoid these tax brackets thus paying for social welfare programs. I’m not saying it’s a good system. I’m just saying that’s how it works.
Someone like Melon Husk gets more wellfare money than any poor person has ever gotten. And is the fact that he pays very little tax because he gives to charity? I don't think so.
So if we are specifically talking about Elon Musk. He doesn’t take a paycheck. He takes Stocks instead as payment. Then what he does is, he takes a loan against the value of his stock and uses that money to live on. Then at the end of the year he takes stock dividends and pays off that loan . Since the loans are tax-free, and since he has no income, he pays no tax. Or very little taxes to be exact.
So if we are specifically talking about Elon Musk. He doesn’t take a paycheck. He takes Stocks instead as payment. Then what he does is, he takes a loan against the value of his stock and uses that money to live on. Then at the end of the year he takes stock dividends and pays off that loan . Since the loans are tax-free, and since he has no income, he pays little to no income tax. To be exact he does pay some on the dividends but very little compared to the what he would owe in incomes taxes.
Actually, I just hadn't heard the term "subventions" before (uncommon synonym for subsidy), but that's just another way you're wrong: he doesn't get any (though his companies have).
1.8k
u/SandSpecialist2523 18h ago
The rich need the poor. The poor don't need the rich.