• pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    Kinda. Billionaires don’t usually have a checking account with a few billion in it because they took it from a company’s profit instead of giving it to payroll.

    Their net worth is largely in non-liquid assets like stocks and real estate.

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      9 days ago

      But, the acquisition of those nonliquid assets is still related to underpayment of wages, at least in cases of extreme wealth inequality (which is to say, pretty much every CEO currently).

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 days ago

      Man I am so sick of people explaining this as if people don’t understand the concept of wealth as oppose to liquid assets. The argument still stands and it just serves to derail the point of whether billionaires should exist or not, and usually it’s used for tax evasion purposes and is entirely moot to the point anyway.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 days ago

      The day they can’t leverage their stock to get infinite loans will be the day that this isn’t a lie.

      Otherwise, it’s a bullshit argument.

    • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      This tired response needs that “brain, big brain, super brain” three part meme.

      Something like “billionaires have most of their net worth tied up into non-liquid assets -> those non-liquid assets attained their high value due to workers being underpaid by exploitative employers -> billionaires are the exploitative employers”