Lemdro.id

2 points

9 days ago

Google AKA Wikipedia says “refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion”

They said that it takes a lot more than the sweat of literally only 2 people to make Google. And “No one has ever…made a billon dollars by…their effort alone.”.

So to answer your question for them, no, they do not belive that. They belive all those people deserve a piece of the pie, as all of them are needed to keep everything afloat. Without your so called supporting staff, the 2 so called visionaries wouldn’t be able to bring forth shit and they sure a shell didn’t just put in more effort than everyone else to deserve the wealth an entire city would blush at.

Also your weird fixation on logos is irrelevant here, or rather a completely separate discussion you started fighting the strawman.

As for the janitor example, I’d need to do some wild assumptions like you to answer for them, so I’m not gonna bother.

As for my personal opinion in all this? I’m honestly having too much fun watching from the outside to ruin it xD Fuck you’re a silly goober.

report

DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world

[ - ]

-1 points

9 days ago

They said that it takes a lot more than the sweat of literally only 2 people to make Google. And “No one has ever…made a billon dollars by…their effort alone.”.

I am not arguing they made a billion alone, I am arguing their work increased the value of Google by billions (which IMO makes them deserve some percentage of the billions).

If all the support staff went to do the exact same work for a average different company, the product/value of that company would be less than Googles by over a billion. I used Bing as a comparable example.

Billionaires cannot possibly create added value to account for their wealth

Also, you accuse me of straw-maning while straw-maning yourself? What is this, Donald Trump debate club?

report

[ - ]

1 point

8 days ago

Your point is irrelevant to what they said, as it is arguing a completely different point. The question of what work can one person possibly bring and how much they deserve for it vs the question of is your value to society dictated by your employer’s market share. Two quite distinct can’o’worms. The idea of one being multiple times more valuable due to their market is in direct conflict with the idea of “a person can only make so much”. Regardless of which argument is right or wrong, it’s a strawman, just because they literally can’t hold that view xD

And plese, do explain to me how me stating something, regardless of the truth of that statement, that has nothing to do with you, is strawmaning you? I’m genuinely curious how you arrived there lol. You can’t just keep using “no you” over and over. OR CAN YOU??? XD Or hold up, ya saying I’m strawmaning them instead? Please do elaborate xD

Also I’m not disproving you, I’m being pedantic about semantics, you trying to double down just digs a deeper hole around you. If you don’t understand, I’m ending it here, a predictable discussion is quite boring.

report

DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

8 days ago

The idea of one being multiple times more valuable due to their market is in direct conflict with the idea of “a person can only make so much”.

Yeah, I am arguing against their belief by showing a contradiction with an obvious truths such as that things have intrinsic value and people can increase said value by much more than others. That is what arguing is. If you think disagreeing with people is straw-maning them, then there is no point for me to waste my time with you.

report

[ - ]

1 point

8 days ago

The contradiction didn’t exist, until you assumed another idea they never demonstrated. They wouldn’t agree that a company’s market share should directly translate into compensation for individuals, because it has “intrinsic value”. It’s only a contradiction if you belive that they belive in the same dogma of “obvious truths” you propose. They could very well say that everyone’s work or life has intrinsic value. Again, who is right or wrong doesn’t matter in this case, just that they belive something else, than what you assume they do.

Personally, I’d argue “intrinsic value” is subjective bullshit as we people are the harbingers of meaning and in turn value, and that a system that awards value as you describe is monopolistic and so detrimental to society at large and thus has negative value.

You can say I’m wrong, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s yet another example of a view that isn’t contradictory to your “obvious truths” as it simply builds on different values. A thing that’s different in every culture FYI.

report

DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world

[ - ]

1 point

8 days ago

They wouldn’t agree that a company’s market share should directly translate into compensation for individuals, because it has “intrinsic value”.

It doesn’t have intrinsic value. At least not the same as its market cap. I use it as an (imperfect) approximation for the value a company creates by providing goods or services.

Personally, I’d argue “intrinsic value” is subjective bullshit as we people are the harbingers of meaning and in turn value

If you don’t think goods and services have intrinsic value, what is the point complaining about wages? Money is tied to the value of goods you can exchange it for. So if value of goods is subjective, then so is value of money. Therefore, fair wages are subjective and there is no way to compensate people fairly.

report

[ - ]

0 points

8 days ago

A homeless person forcefully providing the “service” of cleaning my window has negative value to me. So does Google ruining websearch and undermining web security and in tern national security too. Google hasn’t provided my life any value, while making the world a worse place. I was inclined to say YouTube provided me value in the past, until I remembered Google didn’t make it and that it used to be much better before they bought it.

And yes, money is quite literally subjective. That’s not a hotly debated subject, rather a cornerstone of all modern economic models. And complaining about wages makes sense, because we’re forced to live under this fragile system that directly dictates our well being, while heavily favoring making the world worse. Capitalism requires constant cashflow and it’ll use any tool (like inflation) to coerce people into complying. It literally can’t exists without shit like planned obsolescence or induced addiction as people being satisfied and contempt with their material possessions would hinder the flow of money.

report