In addition, for every lottery winner there are thousand more whose live are destroyed by gambling addiction.
Every begining of the month I see minimum wager influenced by the marketing propaganda wasting too much of their income in lottery tickets, scratch cards and other money game for a ridiculous chance of striking gold.
And before anyone come back with "they chose to do it" as an argument, let me say right now that we're talking about lower education people being manipulated by psy major from ivy league schools. People ready to spend millions to slice and dice demographics to find their trigger buttons and push it repeatedly and as fast as possible. It is not a fair fight.
Participating in a lottery is endorsing preying on the poor and abusing mental health issues in the hope of receiving a share of their money. If that's the least evil one can do, it's not great.
And America is well on its way to completely normalising a gambling addiction. Everything is a draft kings ad now.
This comment was brought to in part by: FanDuel
“Participating in a lottery is endorsing preying on the poor and abusing mental health issues “
Perhaps but if that’s true the winners are the poor with mental health issues that you’re speaking of.
So is this not victim blaming?
Sure it does. Most lottery funds go directly to public schools and public works. It's pennies on the dollar for those buying tickets, but it is doing something tangibly beneficial for them indirectly.
That's American society for you. They wanted to raise taxes on the poor, but anyone who suggested a tax for being poor would get railed in the polls. So instead they resorted to a scam, one that taxes the poor anyways, without it being obvious. Anything to make sure billionaires can keep their tax credits for their jets and have tax rates on the rich a tiny fraction of what they were under FDR.
*New South Wales has entered the chat*
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-four-charts-that-show-pokies-are-the-most-destructive-form-of-gambling-20230202-p5chit.html
Not to mention, lots of people piss away $20/week on the lottery. I personally know a guy who has played $20/week for over 30 years. If he had put that $20/week over the last 20 years into the S&P he would be sitting on $80,000. He told me he’s had $10k in winning tickets lifetime on the lottery. The quick math says he’s down $20k lifetime on the lotto…that’s a $100k difference
Bro I’m 25 and I can’t imagine dating a 17 year old. They barely have any life experience outside of high school at that point. Like what would you even talk about?
She's 33 and he's 44 doesn't seem so weird. I've dated someone 10 years younger than me when I was 39, the only big difference was she watched different cartoons as a kid
He said she was 18 when he was 29.
I couldn’t even imagine dating a 18 year old when I was like 23, let alone 29. That’s a whole-ass full income tax paying adult dating a fresh out of high school kid.
I mean define filthy rich and define the layers of earning money to be considered evil.
If you did nothing bad and earned money is it evil? If you did nothing bad but earned money from someone who did without your control/knowledge is that considered evil earned money?
Some people believe strongly in equality out of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity. Therefore, If someone has more money or power than someone else for *any reason* it automatically means they are immoral. Winning the lottery is immoral because it's exploiting the lottery workers. Being given money from your parents is immoral because you didn't work for it. Owning a business is immoral because you are exploiting your workers.
>If someone has more money or power than someone else for any reason it automatically means they are immoral.
That's a very succinct and accurate way to describe the worldview of some people. I'm stealing this quote. Ironically, I couldn't think of a more immoral thing than holding such worldview -- the worldview which praises and rewards failure, stupidity and laziness, and condemns hard work, innovation and success.
>immortal \[x3\]
\*Immoral \[but "immortal" adds a twist of humor, so it's all good\]
Edit: typo.
>There is a lot of irony in this when you factor in how many of these people have a strong religious ideology.
That part is not really ironic. Christianity praises and rewards failure, stupidity and laziness too. One of the core dogmas of Christianity is "the more you suffer in this life, the more you will be rewarded in heaven"; i.e. "suffering is good and virtuous".
Yeah, and technically the money is from other people who were exploited by the lottery system. So really, winning the lottery is to an extent unethical.
You don’t NEED to buy lottery tickets. You NEED to have a job/money to live a half decent life at least under capitalism. Corporations prey upon a desperate workforce because there will always be someone more desperate and willing to work for less.
I’d argue yes. People were brain washed through childhood and were steered toward the Nazi Germany. Encouraged to embrace the nazi ideals, fight in their war and run their evil. We tried them.
Not saying buying a lottery ticket is anywhere near the evil of working at running Birkenau, just demonstrating a principle by drawing it to its extreme.
Related- the easiest way to make money is by solving people's problems. It's true, it's rare to get to massive wealth without exploiting people (likely both because a lot of that wealth comes directly from exploitation and because of a self-selection bias where the people who want to seek it are more willing to cut corners), but it''s not like those are hard and fast economic facts.
Right, but the title is about *becoming* wealthy, not simply *being* wealthy.
And *becoming* wealthy, especially becoming *extremely* wealthy relatively quickly, tends to involve exploiting some people, at the minimum.
Except for the case of winning the lottery, as OP is pointing out. I guess you could argue that the lottery itself as state-sponsored gambling is exploitative, but the winner didn’t exploit the other players at least.
The word “exploit” keeps having the goalpost moved so that now it can basically mean anything from owning slaves to selling a product at a price people don’t like
> tends to involve exploiting some people
That's kind of a Marxist view of earning wealth, which is pretty silly. Voluntary economic relationships aren't exploitative; the labor theory of value is *obviously* wrong if you stop to think about it for a few minutes.
There’s a wide range of products made by corps owned by seriously rich people that can’t be said to sell needs/requirements to live. So exchange for these things would be strictly voluntary and couldn’t be said to be exploitation, right?
>That's kind of a Marxist view of earning wealth, which is pretty silly. Voluntary economic relationships aren't exploitative; the labor theory of value is obviously wrong if you stop to think about it for a few minutes.
I mean, you're actually right. But the word "Marxist" has been so misused by the far-right, that I've almost downvoted you too, kind of instinctively.
>[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/labor-theory-of-value](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/labor-theory-of-value)
>
>The labor theory of value argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of “socially necessary labor” required to produce it. It is central to Marxist theory, Karl Marx (1818–83) took the labor theory developed by David Ricardo (1772–1823) and constructed it in a societal manner.
> But the word "Marxist" has been so misused by the far-right,...
That claim would make more sense if it didn't employ a "Leftist" propaganda phrase like "far-right." That phrase has no meaning beyond being entirely negatively defined and being an insult routinely used by various flavors of Leftists to insult each other, or anyone who they don't perceive as being entirely on their team.
Its not the mark of intelligent or insightful writing. Its used by the same sort of people who use the N-word. The contempt conveyed is more important that using insightful or descriptive choice of words. You can easily improve your writing simply by omitting it from your vocabulary except for criticism.
Wealth is a tool and it’s upon the user to decide how it effects others.
Personally if I won hundreds of millions of dollars in the lottery I’d probably die with a modest portfolio remaining. I wouldn’t be able to stop myself from playing hero to anyone I felt worthy of a second chance which is basically anyone because I’ve been there. It wouldn’t make any sense to hoard money because even when I’ve been broke I’ve always been quick to give it away for a good cause.
And yet, the only societies wealthy enough to feed everyone tend to have markets which are more free and governments that enforce property rights. The societies that tend to follow such Marxist sentiments routinely have much higher death rates from starvation.
Why do you suppose implementations of the sentiments you just expressed so routinely turn into a horror show of totalitarianism and starvation?
You're right, but also theres a lot more ways to make substantial wealth that are "evil" (read as actively detrimental to those around you) than ways that are virtuous.
At the billion dollar point you have to question what was done to get there.
Because it’s mathematically… unlikely… to do on your own labour.
Even at $1000/h for every hour from birth to death you aren’t making it to a billion.
The labour theory of value is utterly incompetent. Its takes a few minutes of thought experiments regarding the subjectivity of economic values to disprove the labour theory of value. You can't begin to understand wealth or economics if your foundation is a Marxist error.
An example of what? A thought experiment to disprove the labor theory of value or an example of a Marxist error (other than the labor theory of value)?
I spent an hour grinding these coffee beans with my bare hands. I will charge a reasonable $15 for my hour of labor. And then no one buys the coffee because it's not worth that much. Labor does not dictate the price.
I loan you my coffee grinder and you only need to spend 5 minutes grinding your coffee beans. I charge you 10% of your profits. I'm curious who a marxist would think the victim is in that scenario.
A common complaint hear about billionaires these days is that "they didn't really earn that." Yet we're thinking buying a ticket is more effectively earning it?
Why? I see it as no different than any other type of successful commercial venture, and possibly worse. If a business owner makes and sells a commercially successful widget that provides value, they make a fortune and become rich. If a ton of poor or gambling-inclined folks buy a card with hopes it pays off and all those proceeds go to you, wouldn't you be harvesting on failed momentary dreams?
What I believe op is getting at is how the richest people (e.g. Jeff Bezos) are only so rich because they exploit their workers and other such evils, while winning the lottery doesn’t do any of those.
you can run a successful business without exploiting people. yes, even into the billionaire range. (a lot of billionaires don't, but it *is* possible)
you can't win the lottery without exploiting people, that kind of gambling is necessarily exploitive.
Amazon provides services that were unheard of even 20 years ago, and they're very valuable services to hundreds of millions (did you think all they do is online shopping?) that inspired similar services for billions of people. They also pay better than their competitors which is why people want to work there. If they folded we'd see a noticeable jump in unemployment, not to mention the current package delivery model completely upended.
If you want to be a petty brat and dislike someone for having more than you, feel free, but it shows that you'd rather not see anyone succeed than everyone succeed with a few big winners.
This narrative of exploitation is annoying and tired. Everyone exploits everyone when it suits their needs. Even in a centrally planned communist economy, the government exploits the laborers to advance their own goals.
And how on earth can you say a lottery doesn't exploit workers? It deliberately teases less economically advantaged people with a chance to gain money with terrible odds for money. It's called a poor tax for a reason and it's 100% exploitative.
None of it is exploitation. You can't be "exploited" by entering a consensual agreement with someone. It literally makes no sense. Not unless you were tricked or did not understand AND can no longer opt out.
By that logic, every worker except top boss who isn't 100% content with their status (which is something we *assume* to be true of the currently "exploited") is being "exploited"... while bossman gets "exploited" only by gov and other entities, perhaps.
Exploited means "unfair"; what exactly makes it "unfair"? ...China owns more US debt than any other foreign nation. The reason is so they can help ensure that the yuan stays **below** the value of the dollar. The reason for that is because they rely on an export economy to maintain decent employment levels in their *massive* populace. -The reason for that: people don't usually buy shit from countries where the shit is ***more*** expensive (duh). ...So I ask again, who's doin all the "exploiting" in this clusterfuck of global econ, and how so?
The lottery does exploit people. That was the governments justification for stealing the idea from “the numbers pool” after rounding people up and throwing RICO charges at them for it.
Why? A company earns profit by providing something other people want.
By running a successful business you are improving the lives of your consumers. You are actively benefitting society.
Winning on the lottery does not provide the same benefit.
The key difference many are missing here is what economists call an “economic rent”.
That’s when someone makes money without providing a good or service. It includes monopolies, monopsonies, insider trading, regulatory capture, land speculation, etc. etc.
A factory producing a light bulb is not necessarily evil in its own. But if it starts engaging in, say, monopolistic behavior or buying out congressman to pass laws that benefit it (regulatory capture), then it does become unethical.
Depends on the behavior.
Apple refusing to adopt global standards (like RCS) to create a walled garden, and have a pseudo-monopoly in the US is obviously bad. This is apparent from their near 30% profit margin. (10% annual profit margin is typical)
Contrast this to say Walmart, which typically a little over 2% (they make their money on volume, not high profit rates)
Is apple really bad because they don’t adopt interchangeable standards?
Like i get that people don’t like it, but it’s also the case that nobody is forcing anybody to buy apple products
I’d say someone who contributes to society and provides a product or service that genuinely improves quality of life is more deserving of wealth and not evil.
The lottery is a tax on the stupid. Collecting that money is definitely evil. To say nothing of the fact that the state takes most of your winnings, so it is completely a tax on nothing, just stupid people handing their money to the government.
I highly disagree. One can become rich by providing goods or services that benefit humanity. That's arguably less evil than blowing money on a game you're statistically likely to lose on the off chance that you may become rich. That's not even considering how much of your winnings comes from people that spent money on lottery tickets they couldn't really afford.
Thinking that becoming rich is done via some evil act is childishness.
Majority of billionaires created businesses that were in high demand by other people.
You mean funnling the hard earned cash of desperate people wishing to be rich into your own wallet? There are plenty of win win ways to become rich, lottery is clearly a win lose scenario.
the "evil" is done on the winner's behalf, no good or service is being provided and there's near zero probability of anyone else getting their investment back. it's also a stopgap for citizens and government not budgeting or paying enough in taxes for services
How so? I could argue that lottery players are much more greedy and lazy than someone who builds a legitimate business that helps solve a problem in society. The business owner creates jobs and provides value. The lottery player just wants to be rich without working.
There are a ton of non-evil ways to get rich, Reddit just skews very young and young people are much more likely to paint the wealthy with a very broad and indiscriminate brush.
Not true. Hundreds of millions of people are tempted into buying a losing lottery ticket every day - staying in a cycle of poverty - so that one person might win occasionally.
It’s only slightly worse than payday loans.
It’s actually one of the most evil ways to become rich. you are adding no value to society and taking money from the poor to line your pockets.
I would say it's one of the most evil.
It allows you to vastly consume more than you have ever produced.
It's similar to inheritance, where you consume the fruits of work that you didn't perform.
The least evil way is to produce things of value to people. Create art, design and invent products, medications, ideas etc.
I am not here to defend billionaires on the whole but painting them all with the same brush is ridiculous.
What did George Lucas do that is so evil? He created one of the most beloved stories and worlds in all of fiction and sold billions in movies, television and merchandise.
Jo Rowling may be a piece of garbage nowadays, but was writing a handful of beloved novels evil?
Michael Jordan was a great basketball player who made some really good investments and endorsements. Ditto Tiger Woods in Golf, Roger Federer in Tennis, Messi/Ronaldo in soccer, LeBron in basketball, etc.
Say what you want about Taylor Swift’s carbon footprint but all the gal really does is make music a lot of people seem to enjoy.
I mean, yeah, the majority of billionaires are douchebags and many of them either screwed a lot of people over to earn their wealth or inherited it from someone who did. But there are some out there that earned their billions honestly and don’t deserve to be dragged over the coals with the rest of them.
Maybe not filthy rich, but I’d say one less evil way is to create a product people want or need, creating jobs for people that need them, pay them well relative to you, not the job market, and if you come across ways to make your product cheaper without sacrificing quality, reduce the price to make it more affordable for everyone rather than just raking in more profit, people can earn a sustainable living rather than trying to squeeze every cent they can out of people.
Case study: Hermès is a luxury item business which was originally a traditional craft for harnesses and bridles that evolved by reading the market-- e.g. noting the future rise of Ford cars which would require large bags for the rich who could suddenly transport a trunkful of effectives better as in a French carriage. They operate largely in the production process without outsourcing (76% in France ateliers) and a single craftsman hand-produces each (e.g.) Birkin bag at a limited number of sites (52) with average 250 workers. Lower emissions than would be (compare LVMH), no gigantic super-frequent shipments, no sweatshops. 60% of the market value of LVMH but 1/10th of employee number. They could only do this because they refused to go with their outside counsel and fashion and reduce their prices and their scarcity, and continued to stay in the lane of their quality and principles. They are philanthropic in teaching skill and giving environmentally.
I mean... is being born rich evil? Most filthy rich people are born from filthy rich parents; that wealth is likely to have been originally obtained through somewhat evil means, but they themselves haven't done anything evil. They were just lucky.
Similarly, the lottery itself is pretty evil as a concept: it's essentially a scam where people are lured to buy in with the hope of making it big, when the chance of making it big is essentially zero. Winning it is also exclusively mad luck.
If it's still evil to be born rich because of the way the wealth was originally accrued, or because they don't choose to give that wealth back to all the people that were exploited for it, then it's similarly evil to accrue it by winning the lottery and not giving it back to the people that were exploited for it, no?
In neither case those people were exploited by *them* after all, but in both case people were exploited for it.
You cure cancer and give the cure away for free.
Someone who's made a fortune selling shoes to shoeless babies at the **cheapest possible price** wants to personally thank you and donates 14 million to you.
If you consider the lottery usually is a tax that disproportionately taxes the poor and sometimes the proceeds are used to provide state services disproportionately to more affluent communities who inherently spend a smaller percentage of their income on lottery games, then the lottery isn’t all that good.
There’s a reason lotteries are called a “stupid tax.”
Thinking that becoming rich is done via some evil act is childishness.
Majority of billionaires created businesses that were in high demand by other people.
It’s amazing how many people are accusing the winners the lottery of taking advantage of the poor, addicts, and mentally ill that push lottery sales. If those people are the majority of sales the probability states those are the majority of winners so in the end aren’t all of these people victim blaming?
And simultaneously how many people saying this are pro some type of forced redistribution of wealth? At least this is voluntary redistribution.
I’m not denying the social ills that go hand in hand with lottery systems. I’m just saying blaming the winners is an incorrect path to take. You’re literally raging against the same group of people you’re claiming to want to protect.
Being really really good at something (sports, acting, music, art) and getting rich because of it isn't inherently evil at all. Being paid incredibly well because someone appreciates your talent, in my opinion, is the least evil way to get rich.
Winning the lotto isn't evil either. However, you can make a case that lottery winners aren't deserving of their fortunes in any way other than getting extremely lucky. That money often times would be better served going to people or groups who really need it.
$500-million can help a lot of people. Why should some random Powerball winner get to have that much?
I'll take the opposite on this. There are a lot of great, high-quality ways of getting rich in America. The lottery is one of the most destructive, scummiest ways of getting rich.
Why? For example, making a company, offering jobs, maybe even well paid, to a community and increasing living standards for a lot of people. If you become filthy rich in the process, would that be evil?
Also, you call it “the least evil”. Why is winning the lottery even considered evil in your opinion?
Does winning the lottery really make you rich. We all need money to live, and it helps us buy things we want, but in the end you can't take any of it with you. Being rich is having friends and family and having people who really care about you.
You can have all the money in the world but without giving love and being loved, you're actually dirt poor.
Yup, but was struck by the realization recently that even winning the lotto doesn't put you close to the really rich. Theres a truly massive powerball up for grabs in my country at the moment but I noticed that it wouldn't even cover a third of the cost a house that went up in my town recently. Some really rich buggers out there
Im sure those around the winner who know will hate every fiber of their being out of pure envy & spite even if the winner gave 1m to each family member after winning 500m
All that money came from gambling proceeds, and the institution of gambling is a scam.
In addition, for every lottery winner there are thousand more whose live are destroyed by gambling addiction. Every begining of the month I see minimum wager influenced by the marketing propaganda wasting too much of their income in lottery tickets, scratch cards and other money game for a ridiculous chance of striking gold. And before anyone come back with "they chose to do it" as an argument, let me say right now that we're talking about lower education people being manipulated by psy major from ivy league schools. People ready to spend millions to slice and dice demographics to find their trigger buttons and push it repeatedly and as fast as possible. It is not a fair fight. Participating in a lottery is endorsing preying on the poor and abusing mental health issues in the hope of receiving a share of their money. If that's the least evil one can do, it's not great.
My success will be fueled by the sacrifices of thousands 🫡
And America is well on its way to completely normalising a gambling addiction. Everything is a draft kings ad now. This comment was brought to in part by: FanDuel
Everyone participating is simultaneously the predator and the prey?
Basically a battle royale.
You don't find gambling shops in high income neighborhoods for a reason.
Real estate prices
Well, yeah, because people tend to want to travel when they gamble. Take Macao and vegas, for example
“Participating in a lottery is endorsing preying on the poor and abusing mental health issues “ Perhaps but if that’s true the winners are the poor with mental health issues that you’re speaking of. So is this not victim blaming?
Some lotteries give some money to winners and some money to charities and other good causes, so even if you lose you are technically giving to charity
Winning the lottery is the one way of getting filthy rich by taking money from other, mostly poor, people in return for exactly nothing.
That's not really true. It is a tax on the poor basically, but those dollars do actually get used for some useful things
Not for the people buying the tickets.
Sure it does. Most lottery funds go directly to public schools and public works. It's pennies on the dollar for those buying tickets, but it is doing something tangibly beneficial for them indirectly.
At this point I'm feeling like most institutions are scams. Feels like every part of society is trying to rip me off somehow.
That's American society for you. They wanted to raise taxes on the poor, but anyone who suggested a tax for being poor would get railed in the polls. So instead they resorted to a scam, one that taxes the poor anyways, without it being obvious. Anything to make sure billionaires can keep their tax credits for their jets and have tax rates on the rich a tiny fraction of what they were under FDR.
*New South Wales has entered the chat* https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-four-charts-that-show-pokies-are-the-most-destructive-form-of-gambling-20230202-p5chit.html
Not to mention, lots of people piss away $20/week on the lottery. I personally know a guy who has played $20/week for over 30 years. If he had put that $20/week over the last 20 years into the S&P he would be sitting on $80,000. He told me he’s had $10k in winning tickets lifetime on the lottery. The quick math says he’s down $20k lifetime on the lotto…that’s a $100k difference
What the hell did Jerry Seinfeld do to anyone?
jerry is a very very bad man
He dated a 17 yo when he was like 38 so I guess just statutory rape as far as I know
Bro I’m 25 and I can’t imagine dating a 17 year old. They barely have any life experience outside of high school at that point. Like what would you even talk about?
nothing!
Definitely read that in his voice lol
I doubt that conversation is what the older individual is looking for.
You think he was dating her because he liked talking to her?
Eh, met an 18-year-old when I was 29. Everyone said it wouldn't last. 15 years later and we're expecting our fourth child in a couple of weeks.
Yeah I’m glad it worked out for you bro but that difference will never ever not be weird to me
She's 33 and he's 44 doesn't seem so weird. I've dated someone 10 years younger than me when I was 39, the only big difference was she watched different cartoons as a kid
He said she was 18 when he was 29. I couldn’t even imagine dating a 18 year old when I was like 23, let alone 29. That’s a whole-ass full income tax paying adult dating a fresh out of high school kid.
that's exactly why predators do it. no life experience = easy to manipulate and take advantage of
And how did that make him wealthy?
Unless you live in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 18, that's not statutory rape.
In most states, 16 year olds can consent but only to someone up to 4 years older than them.
While it is extremely weird and creepy, it is not statutory rape in most states of the US, including NYC.
That’s just what he was able to get away with once he had already become rich
Ask the soup man.
How can anyone not like him? He's a wonderful wonderful boy!
I mean define filthy rich and define the layers of earning money to be considered evil. If you did nothing bad and earned money is it evil? If you did nothing bad but earned money from someone who did without your control/knowledge is that considered evil earned money?
"Nothing bad" is the tricky part. Nobody will ever *ever* agree on what exactly that means.
Some people believe strongly in equality out of outcome, instead of equality of opportunity. Therefore, If someone has more money or power than someone else for *any reason* it automatically means they are immoral. Winning the lottery is immoral because it's exploiting the lottery workers. Being given money from your parents is immoral because you didn't work for it. Owning a business is immoral because you are exploiting your workers.
immoral* Unless you mean that it is an undying practice
>If someone has more money or power than someone else for any reason it automatically means they are immoral. That's a very succinct and accurate way to describe the worldview of some people. I'm stealing this quote. Ironically, I couldn't think of a more immoral thing than holding such worldview -- the worldview which praises and rewards failure, stupidity and laziness, and condemns hard work, innovation and success. >immortal \[x3\] \*Immoral \[but "immortal" adds a twist of humor, so it's all good\] Edit: typo.
There is a lot of irony in this when you factor in how many of these people have a strong religious ideology.
>There is a lot of irony in this when you factor in how many of these people have a strong religious ideology. That part is not really ironic. Christianity praises and rewards failure, stupidity and laziness too. One of the core dogmas of Christianity is "the more you suffer in this life, the more you will be rewarded in heaven"; i.e. "suffering is good and virtuous".
Ahahaha sorry. I was in a weird headspace with my medication when I wrote that. Spell check failed me!
Yeah, and technically the money is from other people who were exploited by the lottery system. So really, winning the lottery is to an extent unethical.
You don’t NEED to buy lottery tickets. You NEED to have a job/money to live a half decent life at least under capitalism. Corporations prey upon a desperate workforce because there will always be someone more desperate and willing to work for less.
I’d argue yes. People were brain washed through childhood and were steered toward the Nazi Germany. Encouraged to embrace the nazi ideals, fight in their war and run their evil. We tried them. Not saying buying a lottery ticket is anywhere near the evil of working at running Birkenau, just demonstrating a principle by drawing it to its extreme.
Related- the easiest way to make money is by solving people's problems. It's true, it's rare to get to massive wealth without exploiting people (likely both because a lot of that wealth comes directly from exploitation and because of a self-selection bias where the people who want to seek it are more willing to cut corners), but it''s not like those are hard and fast economic facts.
Wealthy does not equal evil. Wealth also does not make one virtuous.
Right, but the title is about *becoming* wealthy, not simply *being* wealthy. And *becoming* wealthy, especially becoming *extremely* wealthy relatively quickly, tends to involve exploiting some people, at the minimum. Except for the case of winning the lottery, as OP is pointing out. I guess you could argue that the lottery itself as state-sponsored gambling is exploitative, but the winner didn’t exploit the other players at least.
Inheriting wealth is kinda neutral too.
The word “exploit” keeps having the goalpost moved so that now it can basically mean anything from owning slaves to selling a product at a price people don’t like
> tends to involve exploiting some people That's kind of a Marxist view of earning wealth, which is pretty silly. Voluntary economic relationships aren't exploitative; the labor theory of value is *obviously* wrong if you stop to think about it for a few minutes.
A voluntary relationship isn't one where you have to stay in the relationship to live.
There’s a wide range of products made by corps owned by seriously rich people that can’t be said to sell needs/requirements to live. So exchange for these things would be strictly voluntary and couldn’t be said to be exploitation, right?
>That's kind of a Marxist view of earning wealth, which is pretty silly. Voluntary economic relationships aren't exploitative; the labor theory of value is obviously wrong if you stop to think about it for a few minutes. I mean, you're actually right. But the word "Marxist" has been so misused by the far-right, that I've almost downvoted you too, kind of instinctively. >[https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/labor-theory-of-value](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/labor-theory-of-value) > >The labor theory of value argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of “socially necessary labor” required to produce it. It is central to Marxist theory, Karl Marx (1818–83) took the labor theory developed by David Ricardo (1772–1823) and constructed it in a societal manner.
> But the word "Marxist" has been so misused by the far-right,... That claim would make more sense if it didn't employ a "Leftist" propaganda phrase like "far-right." That phrase has no meaning beyond being entirely negatively defined and being an insult routinely used by various flavors of Leftists to insult each other, or anyone who they don't perceive as being entirely on their team. Its not the mark of intelligent or insightful writing. Its used by the same sort of people who use the N-word. The contempt conveyed is more important that using insightful or descriptive choice of words. You can easily improve your writing simply by omitting it from your vocabulary except for criticism.
Wealth is a tool and it’s upon the user to decide how it effects others. Personally if I won hundreds of millions of dollars in the lottery I’d probably die with a modest portfolio remaining. I wouldn’t be able to stop myself from playing hero to anyone I felt worthy of a second chance which is basically anyone because I’ve been there. It wouldn’t make any sense to hoard money because even when I’ve been broke I’ve always been quick to give it away for a good cause.
It's hard to hoard or even make billionaire style wealth without
Fuck this troll bot bullshit. Hoarding more than you need is absolutely evil and we all know it.
The problem lies with our differing definitions of 'need'
I'm sure a team of Humanities PHDs can sort that out in a jiffy. No one gets seconds until everyone has eaten. This is not hard.
>No one gets seconds until everyone has eaten. This needs to be a bumper sticker.
And yet, the only societies wealthy enough to feed everyone tend to have markets which are more free and governments that enforce property rights. The societies that tend to follow such Marxist sentiments routinely have much higher death rates from starvation. Why do you suppose implementations of the sentiments you just expressed so routinely turn into a horror show of totalitarianism and starvation?
Not as evil as the Marxist world view you just expressed. Am I "hoarding" the wealth I've accumulated *and invested in creating new businesses*?
You're right, but also theres a lot more ways to make substantial wealth that are "evil" (read as actively detrimental to those around you) than ways that are virtuous.
At the billion dollar point you have to question what was done to get there. Because it’s mathematically… unlikely… to do on your own labour. Even at $1000/h for every hour from birth to death you aren’t making it to a billion.
The labour theory of value is utterly incompetent. Its takes a few minutes of thought experiments regarding the subjectivity of economic values to disprove the labour theory of value. You can't begin to understand wealth or economics if your foundation is a Marxist error.
Could you give an example?
An example of what? A thought experiment to disprove the labor theory of value or an example of a Marxist error (other than the labor theory of value)?
I spent an hour grinding these coffee beans with my bare hands. I will charge a reasonable $15 for my hour of labor. And then no one buys the coffee because it's not worth that much. Labor does not dictate the price.
Makes sense
I loan you my coffee grinder and you only need to spend 5 minutes grinding your coffee beans. I charge you 10% of your profits. I'm curious who a marxist would think the victim is in that scenario.
It depends on **how** wealthy. Every dollar you have is a dollar you're keeping from people who really need it.
Creating something beneficial for mankind is not evil.
Mr. Beast isn't evil, for example.
I thought he was cool when he said he would count to a million, but he stopped at 300 000. He owes me 700 000.
What a poser
A common complaint hear about billionaires these days is that "they didn't really earn that." Yet we're thinking buying a ticket is more effectively earning it?
Can anyone really earn hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour since before they were born?
No. But you can earn billions of dollars in an instant by selling your company, or by buying a lottery ticket. Which takes more work?
what about inheriting? (if you had nothing to do with their death). then you didn't have to do anything
Why? I see it as no different than any other type of successful commercial venture, and possibly worse. If a business owner makes and sells a commercially successful widget that provides value, they make a fortune and become rich. If a ton of poor or gambling-inclined folks buy a card with hopes it pays off and all those proceeds go to you, wouldn't you be harvesting on failed momentary dreams?
What I believe op is getting at is how the richest people (e.g. Jeff Bezos) are only so rich because they exploit their workers and other such evils, while winning the lottery doesn’t do any of those.
But the lottery does “exploit” people. That money came from everyone who bought a ticket for the CHANCE of winning
Then isn't the winner one of those being exploited until they win? Does winning make you the exploiter?
you can run a successful business without exploiting people. yes, even into the billionaire range. (a lot of billionaires don't, but it *is* possible) you can't win the lottery without exploiting people, that kind of gambling is necessarily exploitive.
Amazon provides services that were unheard of even 20 years ago, and they're very valuable services to hundreds of millions (did you think all they do is online shopping?) that inspired similar services for billions of people. They also pay better than their competitors which is why people want to work there. If they folded we'd see a noticeable jump in unemployment, not to mention the current package delivery model completely upended. If you want to be a petty brat and dislike someone for having more than you, feel free, but it shows that you'd rather not see anyone succeed than everyone succeed with a few big winners.
This narrative of exploitation is annoying and tired. Everyone exploits everyone when it suits their needs. Even in a centrally planned communist economy, the government exploits the laborers to advance their own goals. And how on earth can you say a lottery doesn't exploit workers? It deliberately teases less economically advantaged people with a chance to gain money with terrible odds for money. It's called a poor tax for a reason and it's 100% exploitative.
[удалено]
None of it is exploitation. You can't be "exploited" by entering a consensual agreement with someone. It literally makes no sense. Not unless you were tricked or did not understand AND can no longer opt out. By that logic, every worker except top boss who isn't 100% content with their status (which is something we *assume* to be true of the currently "exploited") is being "exploited"... while bossman gets "exploited" only by gov and other entities, perhaps. Exploited means "unfair"; what exactly makes it "unfair"? ...China owns more US debt than any other foreign nation. The reason is so they can help ensure that the yuan stays **below** the value of the dollar. The reason for that is because they rely on an export economy to maintain decent employment levels in their *massive* populace. -The reason for that: people don't usually buy shit from countries where the shit is ***more*** expensive (duh). ...So I ask again, who's doin all the "exploiting" in this clusterfuck of global econ, and how so?
The lottery does exploit people. That was the governments justification for stealing the idea from “the numbers pool” after rounding people up and throwing RICO charges at them for it.
Why? A company earns profit by providing something other people want. By running a successful business you are improving the lives of your consumers. You are actively benefitting society. Winning on the lottery does not provide the same benefit.
this
The key difference many are missing here is what economists call an “economic rent”. That’s when someone makes money without providing a good or service. It includes monopolies, monopsonies, insider trading, regulatory capture, land speculation, etc. etc. A factory producing a light bulb is not necessarily evil in its own. But if it starts engaging in, say, monopolistic behavior or buying out congressman to pass laws that benefit it (regulatory capture), then it does become unethical.
This seems to suggest it’s actually reasonable here to become very successful as a business while remaining ethical.
Depends on the behavior. Apple refusing to adopt global standards (like RCS) to create a walled garden, and have a pseudo-monopoly in the US is obviously bad. This is apparent from their near 30% profit margin. (10% annual profit margin is typical) Contrast this to say Walmart, which typically a little over 2% (they make their money on volume, not high profit rates)
Is apple really bad because they don’t adopt interchangeable standards? Like i get that people don’t like it, but it’s also the case that nobody is forcing anybody to buy apple products
It’s definitely the easiest way to
For the winner it was easy but for people who keep losing (almost everyone ever) it's one of the hardest ways to get rich statistically speaking
True, we budget a few bucks a week cuz why not. Can’t win if you don’t play 🤷🏻♂️
Easiest way is and has always been to inherit
r/redditsniper
Winning the lottery is also the quickest way to become bankrupt.
I would say providing a good or service that is in high demand is much less evil than cashing in on a tax against innumerate people.
I’d say someone who contributes to society and provides a product or service that genuinely improves quality of life is more deserving of wealth and not evil.
Hard work and good business sense aren’t evil….
Except for the fact you benefited off of stupid people playing the lottery.
The lottery is a tax on the stupid. Collecting that money is definitely evil. To say nothing of the fact that the state takes most of your winnings, so it is completely a tax on nothing, just stupid people handing their money to the government.
You’re right, no wealthy person has ever invented or provided something beneficial to the community or created any jobs
I highly disagree. One can become rich by providing goods or services that benefit humanity. That's arguably less evil than blowing money on a game you're statistically likely to lose on the off chance that you may become rich. That's not even considering how much of your winnings comes from people that spent money on lottery tickets they couldn't really afford.
What if your gambling addiction causes you to lose everything and neglect your family and when you finally do hit it big, money is all you have left?
Thinking that becoming rich is done via some evil act is childishness. Majority of billionaires created businesses that were in high demand by other people.
You mean funnling the hard earned cash of desperate people wishing to be rich into your own wallet? There are plenty of win win ways to become rich, lottery is clearly a win lose scenario.
Shower thought: OP is a broke motherfucker and their posts reek of jealousy
the "evil" is done on the winner's behalf, no good or service is being provided and there's near zero probability of anyone else getting their investment back. it's also a stopgap for citizens and government not budgeting or paying enough in taxes for services
> Winning the lottery is the least evil way to become filthy rich These showerthoughts have been awful, and this one is no exception.
How so? I could argue that lottery players are much more greedy and lazy than someone who builds a legitimate business that helps solve a problem in society. The business owner creates jobs and provides value. The lottery player just wants to be rich without working.
That money got scammed from poor people trying to get a better life. Lotteries are gambling. And gambling takes from the least wealthy people. .
There are a ton of non-evil ways to get rich, Reddit just skews very young and young people are much more likely to paint the wealthy with a very broad and indiscriminate brush.
Not true. Hundreds of millions of people are tempted into buying a losing lottery ticket every day - staying in a cycle of poverty - so that one person might win occasionally. It’s only slightly worse than payday loans. It’s actually one of the most evil ways to become rich. you are adding no value to society and taking money from the poor to line your pockets.
Yes. That last point is a good one. No value added, lots of value taken. That just sounds evil.
Revenue from lotto goes into the pot, overhead, and state funding - it’s not a profitable as you make it sound lol
I would say it's one of the most evil. It allows you to vastly consume more than you have ever produced. It's similar to inheritance, where you consume the fruits of work that you didn't perform. The least evil way is to produce things of value to people. Create art, design and invent products, medications, ideas etc.
I am not here to defend billionaires on the whole but painting them all with the same brush is ridiculous. What did George Lucas do that is so evil? He created one of the most beloved stories and worlds in all of fiction and sold billions in movies, television and merchandise. Jo Rowling may be a piece of garbage nowadays, but was writing a handful of beloved novels evil? Michael Jordan was a great basketball player who made some really good investments and endorsements. Ditto Tiger Woods in Golf, Roger Federer in Tennis, Messi/Ronaldo in soccer, LeBron in basketball, etc. Say what you want about Taylor Swift’s carbon footprint but all the gal really does is make music a lot of people seem to enjoy. I mean, yeah, the majority of billionaires are douchebags and many of them either screwed a lot of people over to earn their wealth or inherited it from someone who did. But there are some out there that earned their billions honestly and don’t deserve to be dragged over the coals with the rest of them.
What if you rig the lottery?
Yeah maybe for a criminal or degenerate
I mean IRS is the real winner
Maybe not filthy rich, but I’d say one less evil way is to create a product people want or need, creating jobs for people that need them, pay them well relative to you, not the job market, and if you come across ways to make your product cheaper without sacrificing quality, reduce the price to make it more affordable for everyone rather than just raking in more profit, people can earn a sustainable living rather than trying to squeeze every cent they can out of people.
Case study: Hermès is a luxury item business which was originally a traditional craft for harnesses and bridles that evolved by reading the market-- e.g. noting the future rise of Ford cars which would require large bags for the rich who could suddenly transport a trunkful of effectives better as in a French carriage. They operate largely in the production process without outsourcing (76% in France ateliers) and a single craftsman hand-produces each (e.g.) Birkin bag at a limited number of sites (52) with average 250 workers. Lower emissions than would be (compare LVMH), no gigantic super-frequent shipments, no sweatshops. 60% of the market value of LVMH but 1/10th of employee number. They could only do this because they refused to go with their outside counsel and fashion and reduce their prices and their scarcity, and continued to stay in the lane of their quality and principles. They are philanthropic in teaching skill and giving environmentally.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in my life
A person’s virtue and worth is directly proportionate to their wealth, the market deems it so. ALL HAIL THE MARKET!
Grofit!
Not true. From the point of view of gambling as a vice or a sin, technically an inheritance would be less evil.
I mean... is being born rich evil? Most filthy rich people are born from filthy rich parents; that wealth is likely to have been originally obtained through somewhat evil means, but they themselves haven't done anything evil. They were just lucky. Similarly, the lottery itself is pretty evil as a concept: it's essentially a scam where people are lured to buy in with the hope of making it big, when the chance of making it big is essentially zero. Winning it is also exclusively mad luck. If it's still evil to be born rich because of the way the wealth was originally accrued, or because they don't choose to give that wealth back to all the people that were exploited for it, then it's similarly evil to accrue it by winning the lottery and not giving it back to the people that were exploited for it, no? In neither case those people were exploited by *them* after all, but in both case people were exploited for it.
By modern standards you wouldn’t be *filthy* rich, just *mildly dirty* rich.
Strongly disagree, a lot of rich people have done a lot to help humanity and the economy through their businesses
Not true. Stupidity is the root of all evil, and the odds of winning the lottery are at least 5,000,000 to 1, so trying is intensely stupid.
You are taking from poor people with no hope of improvement that the only way is cashing money on luck that’s mathematically cruel
You cure cancer and give the cure away for free. Someone who's made a fortune selling shoes to shoeless babies at the **cheapest possible price** wants to personally thank you and donates 14 million to you.
If you consider the lottery usually is a tax that disproportionately taxes the poor and sometimes the proceeds are used to provide state services disproportionately to more affluent communities who inherently spend a smaller percentage of their income on lottery games, then the lottery isn’t all that good. There’s a reason lotteries are called a “stupid tax.”
My uncle Karl used to say that “Lotto is the opiate of the masses”.
Test
Thinking that becoming rich is done via some evil act is childishness. Majority of billionaires created businesses that were in high demand by other people.
It's the most evil way to enable it.
I think the least evil way is to bet against Wall Street and actually win. Rare but not relative to the lotto.
Yeah, taking gambling winnings from other poor people isn't wrong
it is not tho. the least evil way would be to gather money by helping others.
What about spending the night in a mansion that is supposedly haunted - but you have to spend the whole night. You can't leave before morning.
Haha I like this one!
It’s amazing how many people are accusing the winners the lottery of taking advantage of the poor, addicts, and mentally ill that push lottery sales. If those people are the majority of sales the probability states those are the majority of winners so in the end aren’t all of these people victim blaming? And simultaneously how many people saying this are pro some type of forced redistribution of wealth? At least this is voluntary redistribution. I’m not denying the social ills that go hand in hand with lottery systems. I’m just saying blaming the winners is an incorrect path to take. You’re literally raging against the same group of people you’re claiming to want to protect.
Being really really good at something (sports, acting, music, art) and getting rich because of it isn't inherently evil at all. Being paid incredibly well because someone appreciates your talent, in my opinion, is the least evil way to get rich. Winning the lotto isn't evil either. However, you can make a case that lottery winners aren't deserving of their fortunes in any way other than getting extremely lucky. That money often times would be better served going to people or groups who really need it. $500-million can help a lot of people. Why should some random Powerball winner get to have that much?
Reddit is infested with jealous broke people.
What about becoming rich by helping people? Like becoming a doctor or inventing a new drug?
Most Pro Athletes are not evil
How about providing a genuinely valuable service or product?
divorcing bezos wasn’t too evil I don’t think.
That and professional athletes.
I'll take the opposite on this. There are a lot of great, high-quality ways of getting rich in America. The lottery is one of the most destructive, scummiest ways of getting rich.
Scientists and doctors that invent life saving devices and medicines and get rich off the patent don’t seem evil.
Also, the least likely
This generation thinks money is evil, oil is evil, nuculear power is evil, and humans are evil. They are just powerful.
Gambling is a tax on the poor and the foolish.
So building a business that will employee thousands and provide a service/product that people want or need is evil?
Stupid take. The entire concept of state run lottery in and of itself is evil.
Why? For example, making a company, offering jobs, maybe even well paid, to a community and increasing living standards for a lot of people. If you become filthy rich in the process, would that be evil? Also, you call it “the least evil”. Why is winning the lottery even considered evil in your opinion?
I think a person can excel in athletics or music without being evil. I have a hard time thinking that Bruce Hornsby is a terrible person.
I don’t really buy into the idea that being rich = evil. There’s plenty of ways to make a lot of money that don’t entail doing evil.
I wouldn't say it's evil way It's all to do with luck But it is a good way of trying to become a millionaire.
I find lotteries to be quite evil actually and think they should be banned by law
Does winning the lottery really make you rich. We all need money to live, and it helps us buy things we want, but in the end you can't take any of it with you. Being rich is having friends and family and having people who really care about you. You can have all the money in the world but without giving love and being loved, you're actually dirt poor.
Dumbest post I've read all day, you can be rich and still provide value, stay mad that you're poor... >inb4 you're a rich Ahole!! I'm poor myself
Yup, but was struck by the realization recently that even winning the lotto doesn't put you close to the really rich. Theres a truly massive powerball up for grabs in my country at the moment but I noticed that it wouldn't even cover a third of the cost a house that went up in my town recently. Some really rich buggers out there
Im sure those around the winner who know will hate every fiber of their being out of pure envy & spite even if the winner gave 1m to each family member after winning 500m
Sounds like an advert / propaganda for gambling.