In assumed an average because it was convenient for the math.
Right. Being "convenient for the math" and your argument.
. I do, however, find it interesting that the first thing you jumped to for discussing how hard people work is their IQ.
Success in life is determined largely by two criteria. IQ and work ethic. Look it up. Or maybe you really do think someone with an IQ of 80 is going to do just as well as someone with an IQ of 160?
My point was that $420 is not a lot of money.
This was based on your own math. So now you're arguing against distributing wealth equally?
And why do you think that this measly $420 would "stifle innovation?
Why on earth would someone work harder than everyone else if they were going to walk away with the same amount of money?
Why do you think that innovation is more important to someone, and to their friends, family, and community, than not dying of malnutrition?
Huh? In the past few decades capitalism has brought more people out of extreme poverty faster than at any other time in human history. Again, when Marx was alibe 90% of the worls lived on less than a dollar a day in today's dollars. Today, less than 1% do.
There's an old Soviet joke that applies here. "When people tell old Soviet jokes, they're always just jokes that Americans made up and attribute to the Soviets to make their lives seem worse than they actually were."
I needed a good laugh today. Thanks for this. Go read the gulag archipelago and then tell me how awesome the soviet system was.
Certainly harder than someone working every day for 12 hours in a sweat shop. All those meetings with VCs are a real killer on the lower back. Do you know how many chairs in offices have bad lumbar support? It's a real killer!
Why don't you go try and found a company and get back to me. After all, if it's so easy, and you're clearly so brilliant, why aren't you a billionaire? Also, the person working 12 hours a day in a sweatshop is the sole reason that there is a middle class in India today.
I assume you're measuring value to society in terms of purely monetary basis. Because obviously there's no possible way that you're saying Google offers 100,000,000 times the [i]moral[/i] worth to society as the average person in Madagascar, that argument would be insane.
Oh man, you're seriously making me laugh out loud again. Way to not only move the goalposts but change the entire game. I'll play along though because this is laughably easy. Are you going to tell me that a guy who sweeps the floor in Madagascar has the same "moral" affect on the world that Larry Page did? How many millionaires did the guy sweeping the floor create? How many jobs? How many millions of people did he give free access to all the information on the fucking planet?! Oh. you mean he did NONE of those things?
I don't even know what to say.
No you don't. Anything you say would dig you into an even deeper hole.
ell for me, I know that a lot of workers in Madagascar are hungry or destitute or sick, and I would like for them to be able to live their lives free of hunger, poverty, and treatable illness. So if they could achieve those things by working (or heck, by not working at all!), then that would be a benefit to me. For you, I guess we'll have to wait until the first Madagascar Internet millionaire.
Huh? How does that benefit your life? I'll bet having access to all the world's information is like, just decadent capitalist pig bullshit right?
Also: