Definitely the second, the second is 10000x worse.
If someone is only worth “that little” but society provides free healthcare, childcare, education, price controlled utilities, housing, and food, and income security through some form of universal income, and everything was clean and green because billionaires didn’t exist and the extra gold hoarding blood money went into society and making sure the earth would stay safe for humans, everyone would be much better off.
A high net worth isn’t needed when all of your basic needs are covered and billionaires aren’t ramming prices of everything up 2-10x
They aren’t “all of a sudden”. They’ve been bunkering up for decades.
It’s also not necessarily indicative of anything. $100M is nothing for Zuckerberg, about 0.05% of his estimated net worth.
For context, excluding billionaires, your average 42 year old American (Zuckerberg’s age) is worth about $135k*. 0.05% of $135k is about $68.
Given the choice, would you spend $68 to completely cover you just in case the world falls apart? Most people would. I certainly would.
*That still includes some pretty wealthy people that skew it higher, so don’t feel bad if you’re not even close in net worth. I’m sure not!
I don’t know what’s worse. That ~40 year olds are worth so little or that the “$68” is so little of Zuck’s worth.
Definitely the second, the second is 10000x worse.
If someone is only worth “that little” but society provides free healthcare, childcare, education, price controlled utilities, housing, and food, and income security through some form of universal income, and everything was clean and green because billionaires didn’t exist and the extra gold hoarding blood money went into society and making sure the earth would stay safe for humans, everyone would be much better off.
A high net worth isn’t needed when all of your basic needs are covered and billionaires aren’t ramming prices of everything up 2-10x