> how about Amazon warehouse worker who is squeezed so hard for profits that they live in a car, work 7 days a week without healthcare or vacations or anything? Them being poor is what enables jeff to be rich.
Amazon warehouse workers are paid enough to afford shelter (especially if they are working 7 days a week), or they are welcome to find a better job.
> Generally speaking whether you realize this or not the economic system creates a competition between entities. And larger richer entities will subsume assimilate and destroy smaller entities when they're looking for that eternal growth with fixed resources.
Yes, capitalism is competitive; that's the point. If a larger entity can perform better than a smaller one, then the smaller one doesn't need to exist.
> The argument to this always is that "it's not a zero sum game". Except that in practice it is. Economies are growing tiny few percent per year perhaps while the rich people are growing their wealth 10-20% per year. This is only possible by changing the wealth distribution making it effectively a zero sum game.
It's not a zero sum game, and you just pulled those numbers out of your ass.
> That means wealthy individuals will outcompete poorer individuals for all resources such as housing, education, health care. Everything will be used to extract maximum wealth from the society until there's nothing more to take.
One person can't consume so much healthcare, shelter, or education that it prevents others from accessing it. Claiming otherwise is absurd.