Of course he’s worth that much. The movie made way more than that and he was by far the biggest part of the movie.
Your argument here betrays your anti-labor thoughts. You’re sitting here making an argument that you should pull down one worker instead of pulling down the owner. If you think the digital artist should be paid more I agree, another workers not at fault for that though. It’s the owner who’s at fault for that. You are thinking like a bitch ass scab.
No, I don’t believe anyone is worth 1000x another person’s labor. That doesn’t make me a scab, that makes me a socialist at worst I guess but it’s weird for you to come in throwing names around. You’re not here to have a discussion, nor further the cause, you’re here to rage and induce rage - at least by your last comment.
You can’t receive 100 million and remain a part of the working class. Owning that much money makes you a part of the owning class. And unless Tom went from a reasonable net worth (<3 million) to this, then be was a part of the owning class before hand too. I’m only suggesting he should be leveraging his power to benefit the workers that made the value 100 million was able to be extracted from (and obviously a ton more for the rest of the owner class).
I’m just pushing back on the portion of society we seem to give too much lenience to - the famous - when at some point they become a part of the problem. I can’t cheer for anyone getting a multi-generational wealth windfall unless I know they’re getting rid of it as fast as possible otherwise all I’m cheering for is the creation of more wealth inequality. Accumulating this much money should be akin to someone getting poisoned, from a societal perspective as it corrupts the soul unless addressed rapidly.
I’m responding in good faith but I won’t continue if your behavior doesn’t improve because, again, you seem more interested in stirring the pot than actually helping the movement and having a conversation.
Of course he’s worth that much. The movie made way more than that and he was by far the biggest part of the movie.
Your argument here betrays your anti-labor thoughts. You’re sitting here making an argument that you should pull down one worker instead of pulling down the owner. If you think the digital artist should be paid more I agree, another workers not at fault for that though. It’s the owner who’s at fault for that. You are thinking like a bitch ass scab.
No, I don’t believe anyone is worth 1000x another person’s labor. That doesn’t make me a scab, that makes me a socialist at worst I guess but it’s weird for you to come in throwing names around. You’re not here to have a discussion, nor further the cause, you’re here to rage and induce rage - at least by your last comment.
You can’t receive 100 million and remain a part of the working class. Owning that much money makes you a part of the owning class. And unless Tom went from a reasonable net worth (<3 million) to this, then be was a part of the owning class before hand too. I’m only suggesting he should be leveraging his power to benefit the workers that made the value 100 million was able to be extracted from (and obviously a ton more for the rest of the owner class).
I’m just pushing back on the portion of society we seem to give too much lenience to - the famous - when at some point they become a part of the problem. I can’t cheer for anyone getting a multi-generational wealth windfall unless I know they’re getting rid of it as fast as possible otherwise all I’m cheering for is the creation of more wealth inequality. Accumulating this much money should be akin to someone getting poisoned, from a societal perspective as it corrupts the soul unless addressed rapidly.
I’m responding in good faith but I won’t continue if your behavior doesn’t improve because, again, you seem more interested in stirring the pot than actually helping the movement and having a conversation.