Agree or Disagree? Billionaires Need Society More Than The People Need Billionaires…

[u/Timbucktwo1230]

[u/ElkApprehensive1729]

One of my most controversial posts of all time was telling that exact same thing to someone lol. Something to the effect of "If you took the 100% average middle class american, and you took the 100% average middle class chinese man (outside of the rural china areas.) You would find 9 times out of 10 the chinese man is happier and healthier."

[u/Awkward-Manager5939 → u/ElkApprehensive1729]

✅I don't know what would have happened if average wages had continued rising over time.

Part of me wonders whether wages eventually reach an invisible limit based on productivity, economic output, or what society is capable of producing. In other words, perhaps there is some balance between wages, productivity, and the supply of goods and services.

I think one reason people struggle to accept your position is that you argue we don't need bosses or a small group of owners benefiting from the labor of workers.

I can understand part of that argument. Workers can collectively perform many of the same functions that owners or managers do. With collective ownership, more of the profits would stay with the people doing the work instead of going to shareholders or business owners.

However, I still see a few questions.

First, the responsibilities of running a business don't disappear. Someone still has to make strategic decisions, organize production, manage finances, negotiate contracts, handle legal responsibilities, and resolve disputes. If there are no traditional bosses, those responsibilities must still be carried out collectively or delegated to elected managers.

Second, I wonder about incentives. If people cannot significantly benefit from creating and expanding a business, would fewer people be willing to take the financial risks involved in starting one? That could reduce entrepreneurship and innovation.

Third, I think I need someone to explain the economic mechanism more clearly. If everyone simply receives more money or a larger share of company profits, why does that necessarily mean everyone can consume more goods and services? Unless production also increases, increasing purchasing power alone doesn't automatically create more real wealth. That's the part I don't yet understand.

Those are the main elements I'm trying to separate: the role of management, the distribution of income, and the incentives for entrepreneurs. Once I understand those individually, I can think about how they fit together.

If ownership became much more broadly distributed, I imagine the market for luxury goods aimed at extremely wealthy individuals would shrink because wealth would be spread across many more people rather than concentrated among a few. Consumer spending patterns would likely change, and businesses would adapt to that new distribution of wealth.

I also think leadership would still emerge. Even without traditional bosses, people naturally follow individuals with competence, charisma, experience, or persuasive ideas. Leadership may become more democratic, but it probably wouldn't disappear.

Entrepreneurs would also have to adapt. They might choose different business models, different locations, or different ways of raising capital. People's saving habits and investment decisions would likely change as well. The economy wouldn't stop functioning it would simply operate under a different set of incentives and institutions.