Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#231

Post by api »

chillwaves wrote: post #211
RestlessMind wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amazing nugget which should be the context for any controversial discussion about "Billionaires". I have utmost respect for the former category, but I also believe that the later category should not exist (as in those people should exist but they should not have any unearned billions and all the unearned power and privileges that come with it).

Neither category should exist. The fact billionaires exist is an indictment against our system and how we allocate resources.

Who would allocate resources better?

Re: Billionaires Build

#232

Post by tdevito »

>Can you imagine a better way to destroy social mobility than by telling poor kids that the way to get rich is by exploiting people, while the rich kids know, from having watched the preceding generation do it, how it's really done?

I'm so glad someone finally said this, I wasn't sure if I was the only one with the same theory about inequality and it is articulated well here. It's "cultural inequality", inequality of cultural capital.

Re: Billionaires Build

#233

Post by dcolkitt »

chillwaves wrote: post #212
austinpena wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children?

Do you believe in meritocracy? Because ownership of that amount of wealth is surely going to skew the entire system. How long before we just have a permanent ruling class, and how does that move humanity forward?

In aggregate, the 400 richest billionaires put together only constitutes 4% of the total wealth in America.[1][2]

Even if you assume that power correlates perfectly with wealth, there's not really evidence that billionaires control anywhere near enough money to become a "permanent ruling class".

[1]https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/06/25/six-facts... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth

Re: Billionaires Build

#235

Post by drewrv »

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people

I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this:

The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more wealth and power. It doesn't have to be this way, it's a product of our laws and can be changed.

Warren Buffet doesn't directly exploit anyone. However he does pay less taxes than his secretary. To the extent that Uber drivers and Amazon warehouse workers are exploited, it's because our society has millions of desperate people struggling to get by. What's the point of being the wealthiest nation ever on paper, if there's terrible schools, high infant mortality, and lead in the drinking pipes?

Re: Billionaires Build

#236

Post by willyg123 »

ardy42 wrote: post #219
julienb_sea wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your startup makes your investors billions, you are probably becoming a billionaire in the process or pretty close.

> If your startup makes your investors billions, you are probably becoming a billionaire in the process or pretty close. Most startups fail, though.

> Most startups fail, though.

So do most batters in Major League Baseball.

Re: Billionaires Build

#237

Post by missedthecue »

googlryas wrote: post #205
mbgerring wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I would argue that most employees never get a meaningful offer to accept more risk if they so choose. I think it would be better if employees could choose to accept more risk in the form of profit sharing in place of salary, but it’s not typically on the table, even at a startup. Second, the point here is that PG is misapprehending (or deliberately obfuscating) what people mean by “exploitation.” When Marxists…

Employees have the choice in that they are free agents and can choose to accept or reject any contract. And they themselves can go and found a company just like the founders on the other side of the table. Would it be nice if employees were given options to wiggle fixed comp to adjust to their own risk profiles - so they could choose more guaranteed pay with less risk, or more possible upside with more risk? Sure, ab…

"And I don't understand why employees would ever be compensated for the "full value of their labor". When you work for a company, your labor generally only makes sense within the context of the larger organization"

This is a good point. I've never understood why people who claim the full value of their labor is being stolen bother to involve themselves with the purported thieves at all. Why not work independently and take the "full value" of your labor for yourself?

The answer is of course because your Vue.js skills (or what have you) are not very valuable on their own without the whole organization; being capital, management, customers, suppliers, etc...

Re: Billionaires Build

#238

Post by Lendal »

dcolkitt wrote: post #210
daralthus wrote: post #174

Not sure what to make of this. Billionaire companies != seed funded startups. The exploitation really kicks into gear after you have 5000 employees and there are many inflection points of power differentials until then. Each not as a big deal, but slowly eroding some rights the farther and lower you go.

The evidence is indisputable that workers at large firms have substantially higher productivity than small firms.[1] Big business also pays its workers substantially higher wages. If your model of big business is that it's a tool for exploiting workers, you'd expect the opposite of this dynamic. Instead the economics is pretty clear that most large firms create synergies that empower individual workers to produce muc…

The question though is why shouldn't those workers receive a larger share of their own productivity gains? As we work harder, we should receive more. But since the mid-1970's workers have received only a fraction of their own productivity gains. Most of that value is being sucked upward. It wasn't always this way.

Re: Billionaires Build

#239

Post by TAForObvReasons »

drewrv wrote: post #235

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this: The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more…

> Warren Buffet doesn't directly exploit anyone

FWIW He has a significant stake in a company (Berkshire Hathaway) that does own a series of companies that engage in questionable practices. And he is uniquely in a position to stop that practice and chooses not to.

https://publicintegrity.org/business/warren-buffetts-mobile-...

Re: Billionaires Build

#240

Post by ardy42 »

dang wrote: post #189
ardy42 wrote: post #169

> But aptitude for exploiting people is not what Y Combinator looks for at all. In fact, it's the opposite of what they look for. I'll tell you what they do look for, by explaining how to convince Y Combinator to fund you, and you can see for yourself. I mean, of course. Y Combinator is looking first and foremost for people who will make them billions in the aggregate. Most of those people who pass the interview will…

> Y Combinator is looking first and foremost for people who will make them billions in the aggregate Since the only way this happens is by funding founders who go on to build big successes, you're confirming what pg said.

> Since the only way this happens is by funding founders who go on to build big successes, you're confirming what pg said.

He seems to be trying to make a general statement about billionaires or becoming a billionaire, but he's really only talking about a certain kind of potential billionaire that's suitable input for the VC business. His working definition of exploitation also seems to be far more limited in scope than the one the "mistaken" "politicians" use. Even someone who's kind and considerate to everyone around them can build system that exploits people.

Post reply on HN