I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not, but putting aside the impact of this statement from, say, even a non-zero-sum game perspective, this statement, er, almost ironically mirrors perfectly a few choice historical examples of why the flood broke the way it did in the past.

I'm not sure if there's a way I could succinctly share a response detailing the why, other than certain general desires for relatively decent self survival and for the general wellbeing of the population outside of our small walled garden. Theres's a lot of debate that could be had over the second half of that last sentence, so all I can comfortably say is that what we take affects other people.

But the bigger part is probably some of the historical irony in the statement, since it is likely what a museum piece would use if translating historically what has happened in the past into a modern day hypothetical scenario, in terms of how different sides viewed the issue and communicated.

Because your status is temporary. As long as you have to work for a living, you're vulnerable to whatever 'the market' does.

Additionally, regardless of how overpaid you are, you cannot isolate yourself (to the extent of how billionaires can) from the effects of extreme wealth inequality. These are too many to list in a hn comment, but to give you an example, if a mob turns violent, you'll not have a security detail to evacuate you and your family.

Because you care about people other than yourself?

> Why would I welcome this?

The second half of the sentence you quoted?

He’s saying welcome the labor movement which helps… labor. Not welcome ChatGPT