As in: Which makes the most sense from their PoV, ethics aside.

  • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    I think an easier interpretation than the “owners vs workers” in this day and age is, are they billionaires. If you’re not a billionaire or close to it, you should be on the side of the working class.

    The billionaires that make up only 1% of the population ans own nearly half the wealth of the entire world are the problem.

    • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 days ago

      $10M and up would probably qualify. Below that, people would still need to work to maintain what they have with some measure of comfort and dealing with risk, inflation. Above that, they should be able to be self sustaining without working for a paycheque.

    • despoticruin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Honestly you can just remove the ambiguity and put the number right at 1 billion dollars of net worth. Up to that point is obscenely wealthy, but a billion is the line that guarantees the majority of your wealth came directly from the exploitation of the masses.

      You can’t ethically make a billion dollars as an individual when the working class sees 1/10,000th of that in a year as doing fairly well in most areas.

      • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        Ethically, the bar is much, much lower. By the time you have $25M net, you had to have exploited someone to get there and you’d have the clout to make at least local politics bend in your favour.