Giving money to poors, they would spend it and increase economic activity. That would create more money and therefore pay back that was given to the poors. But they would not be that poor anymore, and teenagers would cost far too expensive for the bilionaires’ pleasure (and most would even just refuse). As long as the choice is let up to the richests, the poors won’t be founded but by fear…
The official economical theory says that their is no relation between the wage and the income ; since you would (obviously?) work twice longer per day if your wage was halfed (unless you are lazy).
It is a bit hard to find examples where workers really accepted to do so, at least up to that point… because those who work hard are lazy and don’t deserve to become rich, unlike the kids of shareholders (or else the system would be unfair, since they receive more than workers…)
Giving money to poors, they would spend it and increase economic activity. That would create more money and therefore pay back that was given to the poors. But they would not be that poor anymore, and teenagers would cost far too expensive for the bilionaires’ pleasure (and most would even just refuse). As long as the choice is let up to the richests, the poors won’t be founded but by fear…
I don’t really think the notion that the workers are also the customers has really sank in.
Hey, maybe next year at the 100 year anniversary of the 5 day work week it might finally click.
The official economical theory says that their is no relation between the wage and the income ; since you would (obviously?) work twice longer per day if your wage was halfed (unless you are lazy).
It is a bit hard to find examples where workers really accepted to do so, at least up to that point… because those who work hard are lazy and don’t deserve to become rich, unlike the kids of shareholders (or else the system would be unfair, since they receive more than workers…)