If they had to pay them that much, they would have never hired most of them.

exactly. A company tant doesnt overexplore its workers cannot grow like alphabet did. The underpayment of the workers is an essential feature of alphabet, and part of what makes its market capitalization that high.

This implies that the answer to my question is “no”: if the workers had been paid properly from the start, there wouldnt be the discrepancy that makes the founder billionaires.

dont blame me for the opinions of someone else. Just note how hipocritical you sound by dismissing criticism of the us while criticizing russia. Why not both?

Would that market cap be so high if all those employees were paid that extra million yearly? Market caps depend on more than the actual value of the company’s product to society.

No, thats not what im saying.

Just that if everyone involved in the process of making something was paid fairly, there wouldnt be enough money to make the end node billionaire.

your conditions are too specific. what the US did to Iraq, Vietnam, Korea,… is already bad enough. But these dont qualify because they arent neighbors of the us, and the intentions arent exactly what you listed. still, these are already bad enough.

well, i simply dont agree that googles worth comes down to the work of those two people. what they did may have been necessary for the success of google, but so was the work of a lot of their employees.

again, the www is founded on the work of uncountably many people. the person credited is usually the one at the end of the chain of production. the end of the chain is necessary for there to be a product at all, but each of the other nodes of the chain is equally as important.

2. Ever since internet and software became a thing, they can. It is absolutely possible for one person to create sw worth billions.

Name one thing that one person created that became worth billions. Something that is rightly credited to a single person.

the base structure of the movie is just one of its many components. the originality may be on the meat, rather than the skeleton.

people become billionaires through wage theft. that money should not be his to give in the first place. Plus, the starving are unemployed because the unemployment rate is artificially controlled economically in order to pressure the working class into accepting bad work conditions.

plus it was another data point for profiling people based on their browser settings.

i wouldnt call a restaurant unoriginal just because they serve food on a plate besides a fork and a knife.

i doubt the effort would be actually equal. dont know about ny, but where im from, the double standard is blatant

looking at these is disturbing me a little

I see, so you see it not an actual state we may achieve, but rather the negation of present authorities and systems.

So as long as an organization is truly democratic, it can be considered anarchist?

For example, if one person likes to make coca cola but as a side effect he pollutes a river that the rest of the group wants to keep clean. The group may decide democratically to force him to not make coca cola. I would call this a goverment-like organization, even though it does not need to have a leader to fulfill its goal.

That’s the [any country] National Motto!

…i suppose

excuse my ignorance, but ive always wondered this about anarchism: Seems to me that people gather and organize themselves to reach common goals. How can these organizations not become governments? is that actually possible?

escalations are escalations, justifiable or not.

you’re tripping. third world countries arent some lawless wastelands full of hopeless zombies like you seem to imagine.

yes, the internet wasnt built on charity