I'll post a fresh comment but it's a reposted sentiment:
I don't think the rightwing often understands the left's view on 'illionaires
The left will for example take someone who is hardworking and even if you make $100k a year without investments, you're not on that wage alone going to become a billionaire or trillionaire (maybe a millionaire)
So they infer you need to do something "unjust" or "immoral" to accumulate monies beyond that "honest work" that can't make you a billionaire+
These monies must then come from people "doing honest work" which they get through dishonest business practices (is what they argue)
I think there's some truth to the sentiment, or the rightwing doesn't seem to embrace traditional Christian views on wealth as much ("harder for rich man to enter heaven than camel to go through eye of a needle" ... the story of the rich man being condemned to hell for not helping the poor man Lazarus who was in need, etc.) - but obviously it's not a totally accurate view: you definitely can make use of businesses and technologies to create vast amounts of wealth individually
So there's something of a struggle of honest labor versus "dishonest" capital in this conversation, which is not a new conflict by any means
The other related issue is more of proportional wealth, but the average "honest worker" has had their wages stagnate for a while, while CEO pay is currently sitting at ~300x that of the average worker. The average CEO is obviously (or at least I think it's obvious) not working 300x "harder or smarter" than the average worker, whose wages are not at a "comfortable middle class level". So literally if the wealthiest weren't as "greedy" and would "buy off" poorer people more, they probably wouldn't complain as much about the growing sense of "economic inequality" of the richest versus the poorest in American society.
There are other objectionable grifts at play, like with the 2008 bank bailouts: some "businesses" profit out of loans made out of thin air and when their loans go bust the losses are socialized on to the public (aka the left might view this as more "stealing from the average hard worker"), so they "win" no matter what the outcome here, or at least don't "lose" like other normal people do.
I'll post a fresh comment but it's a reposted sentiment:
I don't think the rightwing often understands the left's view on 'illionaires
The left will for example take someone who is hardworking and even if you make $100k a year without investments, you're not on that wage alone going to become a billionaire or trillionaire (maybe a millionaire)
So they infer you need to do something "unjust" or "immoral" to accumulate monies beyond that "honest work" that can't make you a billionaire+
These monies must then come from people "doing honest work" which they get through dishonest business practices (is what they argue)
I think there's some truth to the sentiment, or the rightwing doesn't seem to embrace traditional Christian views on wealth as much ("harder for rich man to enter heaven than camel to go through eye of a needle" ... the story of the rich man being condemned to hell for not helping the poor man Lazarus who was in need, etc.) - but obviously it's not a totally accurate view: you definitely can make use of businesses and technologies to create vast amounts of wealth individually
So there's something of a struggle of honest labor versus "dishonest" capital in this conversation, which is not a new conflict by any means
The other related issue is more of proportional wealth, but the average "honest worker" has had their wages stagnate for a while, while CEO pay is currently sitting at ~300x that of the average worker. The average CEO is obviously (or at least I think it's obvious) not working 300x "harder or smarter" than the average worker, whose wages are not at a "comfortable middle class level". So literally if the wealthiest weren't as "greedy" and would "buy off" poorer people more, they probably wouldn't complain as much about the growing sense of "economic inequality" of the richest versus the poorest in American society.
There are other objectionable grifts at play, like with the 2008 bank bailouts: some "businesses" profit out of loans made out of thin air and when their loans go bust the losses are socialized on to the public (aka the left might view this as more "stealing from the average hard worker"), so they "win" no matter what the outcome here, or at least don't "lose" like other normal people do.