First, I'm assuming that you are not a free market maximalist, and that you believe that a market without any regulation will result in mega monopolies where it no longer matters if you find the price of the product to be fair.

The distribution of the wealth created by the massive increase in productivity has been trending towards the organisational top for many decades now.

I don't think that the management has gotten exponentially more efficient and better at their job to justify their increasingly bigger share of the profits.

Good question. When the robber pointed his gun at my head, I thought: since I am willingly giving this man my wallet in return for my life, he must have earned it.

I think there's a bit of nuance here. AOC is directionally correct, but of course there's exceptions.

I do think Taylor Swift and JK Rowling "earned" a billion dollars.

I don't think Elon Musk or Donald Trump "earned" their wealth.

Elon, for example, did earn a lot of it. People gave him money for Teslas.

But he disproportionally makes profit off regulatory credits, selling his own companies to each other, and burdening his companies with debt. He's forced people to work through pandemics, undermined the SEC, stolen data from the government, bought elections, and (if you want to believe recent stories) may have even helped cheat in the most recent presidential election. He directly caused hundreds of thousands of deaths due to DOGE budget cuts, all while getting billions of dollars worth of contracts via SpaceX and xAI.

Or Bezos. Amazon uses our roads and infrastructure. A majority of Amazon warehouse workers rely on public assistance. I believe Bezos is a phenomenal founder, but his returns have subsidized by us.

There's a reason Taylor Swift doesn't get brought up when people talk about the rich. You _can_ earn a billion dollars, but more often than not you have to screw over a lot of people to get there.