[Findecanor]

That notion is based on the misconception that for there to be very rich people, other people would need to be poor — that would resent you.

Economic science has pretty much proven that when the average income in a society is higher and fewer are poor, the economy moves more money and the rich benefit more as well.

[pixl97]

Misconception is not really the right word here along with the word 'need'.

It comes down to if the people in power think they are playing a zero sum game and are driven by greed. We see plenty of dictatorships that are very resource wealthy and yet their society suffers in abject poverty. Said leaders have zero care about making their peoples life better and will gladly kill them wholesale if they become problematic.

[bitwize]

Relative wealth disparity is what drives lower-class resentment, not absolute poverty.

Income inequality is very bad in its own right.

[nosianu]

> other people would need to be poor

Just like billions are not about "being rich", this is about CONTROL. Control of the economy, and how people live, and control over one's own life.

Abstraction is a beast, putting everything regardless of what it actually is as some $$ number is terrible for understanding. The billionaires don't have Scrooge McDuck money at home where they swim in coins, they control huge parts of the economy.

And as long as they need workers, they will want them to live not too well - that would raise the price of labor, if people wanted to do work in places like Amazon warehouses to begin with, if they had better alternatives not working for the billionaires.

Being "poor" in this context means having a lot less control over how you live, not that you live on the streets. Although, as soon as you lose your value, e.g. by getting too sick, that is always on the table too.