I'd keep that attitude in check, if you are in a western nation you are likely in the top 1% - 2% in terms of income globally. Things would end pretty badly for you if 98% of the planet decided people like you are evil.
I'd keep that attitude in check, if you are in a western nation you are likely in the top 1% - 2% in terms of income globally. Things would end pretty badly for you if 98% of the planet decided people like you are evil.
So I wouldn't be surprised if one day the global poor would say "enough is enough".
My point wasn't that there was no reason to complain, indeed there are many reasons to complain. My point was that making generalizations and threats based on an arbitrary number wasn't very productive or honest.
Now lets say we add a few zeros to your income to move you from the top 1% globally to the top .1%. Jobs that pay this kind of money are difficult, so you work really hard as well. Instead of an iPhone made in the third world you buy a yacht or sports car made in the first. The first world workers make much less than you do, but have a pretty good standard of living globally speaking (but not compared to you).
What is fundamentally different about those two cases? Can it really be said with a straight face that one is greedier than the other? In fact, it seems the "wealthy" person actually created better outcomes for the people creating his luxury product as compared to the first example.
This is a glass house sort of situation when you really consider it.