The markets are based on supply and demand for labor. If you have specific knowledge, skills or education, that will demand a higher wage than if you have a lack of skills and any one of millions of people can do the job, Billionaires risked the capital, had a great idea and worked very hard at getting their. It is not up to you or me to decide if they have too much. Their success is not keeping you or I from gaining wealth or achieving our dreams.
>laborretard>frog postah yes retard confirmedgo larp somewhere else marxist
>>517664052>The markets are based on supply and demand for labor.They based on treasury bond yields.
The claim that markets simply reward “supply and demand for labor” ignores that these markets are not neutral, but structured by ownership and power. Workers do not negotiate wages as equals; they must sell their labor to survive, while capitalists already control the means of production and can dictate terms. Billionaires do not earn their fortunes purely through “risk” or “hard work,” but by appropriating the value created collectively by workers. The supposed scarcity of specialized skills is shaped by unequal access to education, training, and opportunity — advantages often purchased with inherited wealth. Meanwhile, so-called “unskilled” labor is essential for society but deliberately undervalued because millions are forced into it with little bargaining power. To say billionaires’ success harms no one is false: their wealth represents surplus value extracted from labor, wages kept artificially low, and profits maximized at the expense of fair distribution. Every billion hoarded at the top is wealth not reinvested in communities, wages, or public needs, while monopolies and corporate power push smaller competitors out and keep workers dependent. Wealth is not infinite; it is the product of human labor and natural resources, both of which are finite. When one individual amasses more than entire populations, it reflects systemic exploitation, not merit. Socialists argue the issue is not envy or deciding what is “too much,” but recognizing that such concentration of wealth undermines democracy, suppresses opportunity for the many, and leaves essential workers in precarity while a handful accumulate absurd fortunes. A fair society must democratize wealth and production so that success is measured by collective well-being, not private hoarding.
>>517664052>Billionaires risked the capitalIgnore all the government welfare, contracts and lobbying
>>517664345Unironically, thanks ChatGPT
>>517664582Sneed
>>517664052they refute it thus
>>517664052>The markets are based on supply and demand for labor.Scarcity has been over for almost a century. Supply and demand are manipulated memes used to force waging as a means of controlling the population.>If you have specific knowledge, skills or education, that will demand a higher wage than if you have a lack of skills and any one of millions of people can do the jobYou can "demand" whatever you want, but you can't force someone to hire you, nor can the government force them (unless you want fascism). Since one cannot be responsible for what they cannot control, nobody has a responsibility to work. Jobs are given, not earned.>Billionaires risked the capital,Banks create money when they extend loans, with no risk.>It is not up to you or me to decide if they have too much.Yes it is, because all credit money printing is fraud and any fraud is too much.>Their success is not keeping you or I from gaining wealth or achieving our dreams.Yes it is, because their success is based on stealing value from everyone who cannot print money. They can make money for free, but you have to borrow it, "earn" it, and pay interest on it.
