Sure it does
And I think you'd be surprised

People here get upset about other people owning properties out in the sticks

Most of the people ive observed and talked to that are on that side of things are mostly angry with millionaries and billionaries, not the fairly wealthy guy making 150~300k a year.
Bernie and his '1%' thing is a decent example of that i think.

so they're not allowed to have their earnings? regardless of if they need it

what share of those billions are any of us "justified" in owning?

?

I dont think i really hold the relevant positions to anwser that. Half of this has been me playing devils advocate.

I dont think its about being justified in owning exactly? More that its hard to really say that "Yes, bill gates worked so hard, and so well, that he deserved to make those billions"
(Compared to most of us plebs making a few hundred thousand a year at most)

The CEO - Worker income disparity is also tossed around

he's the one that made the calls that ended up with him earning that money in the end

And the people willingly gave him that by buying the product,
The people who worked for him willingly accepted that wage

he did deserve to make those billions

Had to google the number, but i know Modragon's Worker-CEO ratio is 1:15 roughly.
First article i found is that in Canada the average CEO makes 200x the average Canadian income (50k/Year)

Well like i said before, capitalism doesnt need justification

exactly

The people calling for high taxes on highest earners and the like do however.

but the issue of people getting upset is them being angry they don't want to take risks themselves

people who feel that way never started their own business to prove they are as capable to become rich too

Though, i'd kind of disagree on whether he deserved it or not.

I mean deserved to become rich, sure?

But 80 billion is a mind boggling amount

be played very dirty, and destroyed other companies in the process

but in the end, he did deserve it

What's the metric for 'deserve'?

did he do criminal acts that he hasn't attoned for?

he violated certain anti-trust laws, and went to court, with the courts finding him guilty, and forcing him to give up his CEO position

after he destroyed Netscape

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

he didn't steal it,
didn't con it

all the money he earned is from people willing to work for him at their salaries,
and consumers willing to pay for his product

Ultimately thats true, or at least close enough to the truth

Which is why i said in the capitalist system it ultimately doesnt matter if you 'deserve' it, thats how the system works

exactly

Whether you contribute to peoples lives or not, so long as you managed to make the money within the letter of the law, the system accepts that.

well tahts the beauty of capitalism,

People decide themselves if they want it

nobody is forcing people to buy the best graphics cards etc for their pc

or most fancy iphones

the people decide what they want to buy

And if the market offers, people can buy it
If the market isn't there and people want it, Someone will get funding to get into that market and people will buy it

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

More favorable example for the non-capitalists is predatory lending

true

It's legal, you sign the loan, you can read the letter of what you're being offered, and accept it