But I would be immortal, and still rich.
Is immortality worth it if you're required to work 7 days a week for 600 years?
Yea, you could probably retire soon
But you will run out of money
But I don't really need money, I haven't spent a dime in 600 years
972,725,000 is my rough estimate, so only about 15 years to go.
I get the point. I've even posted about how absurd a billion dollars is. But, here's the problem with the post's absurdism: $5,000 a day since 1492 would be well over a billion dollars today, assuming things like investing, real-estate, and inflation still exist. Given that, for reference, $5K / year was uber rich around the victorian era, you'd definitely be a multi-billionaire if you've had access to that kind of money since 1492.
Okay, how about this? If someone were to work every day for 50 years and if they invested everything they earned at an 8% interest rate, they would need to earn approximately $1.4M/day to reach Elon's current level of wealth.
At $5,000/day income and 8% interest investments, it would take 120 years to accumulate $340B.
Yes. Your math is correct. My point was never "billionaires good", but rather the meme is disingenuous. But I guess any time anyone says anything other than "billionaires bad" they get downvoted.
I'm not really sure why you're being downvoted. I up voted you.
I didn't actually mean to imply that I disagreed with you. I was just giving some alternative numbers to demonstrate the issue in a more realistic way. I also didn't think you were implying that billionaires are good just because the example in this post isn't the best one.
Your point is still not clear to me. It could be interpreted as $5,000 in today's money every day since long ago. It still is a lot of money per day, even in the equivalent money back then. 5 cents then (or whatever) is what $5,000 feels like today. So what's your point?
If you are still asking what my point is after my two comments, I think we're done here.
But you can also use this to make it work. If you instead use the amount that is equal to todays 5000$ then it works. You just have to see your own point through instead of selective ocd.
So, if we add information it makes sense, but only then? Which is my point, it's disingenuous. The people making $5K a year back in 1492 are the ones who passed their wealth on to the 0.001% today. Making $5K per day is just more money, and my point still stands.
You're being disingenuous yourself, as you most likely know. Good luck with that attitude.
How much does Bezos "make in a week"? This sounds wrong
Feel free to check it out. Your favorite search engine should do the trick.
If you searched it you'd see that you'll get a variety of answers, ranging substantially.
Also this doesn't accomodate for the idea that his weekly "income" is likely negative during temporary stock market downturns.
This seeems to be making "what he makes" equivalent to his net worth, which would fluctuate a lot.
I did and i know that. Do you realize that this is anticorporate and have you read the description?
This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.
Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.
Current topics this includes but is not limited to:
Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.
Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.
But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.
But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.
But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.
But then they will "live" in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.
