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

511–520 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#511

Post by alisonkisk »

dcolkitt wrote: post #263
Lendal wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Average worker compensation has nearly doubled in the past 20 years.[1] Almost exactly in line with aggregate productivity levels.[2] What I'm guessing you're referring to is median household income. Which is a quite different number than mean worker income. The former has stagnated relative to the latter primarily because a massive number of prime-aged workers, in particular young men, have dropped out of the labor…

Adjusted for inflation, income growth is 0. Capital is capturing all the productivity gains.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

Re: Billionaires Build

#512

Post by imgabe »

arrosenberg wrote: post #472
imgabe wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That, however, is a strawman. Nobody suggests that at all. People who support more progressive taxation point to things like the New Deal and the strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure and education that propelled the United States forward. You're making that exact argument in fancier words. "strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure" implies…

Maybe the government has enough money, maybe it doesn't. It's the structural disparity that Jeff Bezos' wealth represents that is the problem. His wealth also gives him disproportionate power to shape the incentives of the government, the economy, and the media narrative. Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws.

The general structure is that people are allowed to own the things they make. If you start a company, it belongs to you. Your company might become very valuable and mine might not, which might create some disparity.

There are other systems, like where everybody owns everything, but historically when you allow it so one person can own something that someone else has to create it doesn't work out very well. People don't have any incentive to make things if they can just own things that other people make.

Re: Billionaires Build

#513

Post by cwkoss »

api wrote: post #314
claudeganon wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese government is a horrible, authoritarian nightmare, but still somehow does better at managing the country's resources than the American ruling class. The pandemic, now over in China, while our nurses tape garbage bags to themselves as thousands die daily, has proven that definitively.

The pandemic happened to hit while we had a particularly idiotic populist demagogue in the White House, but even if we'd had someone more competent I still agree that China would have done better. Assuming you believe their numbers, China seems to be doing better than most of the world. I chalk up China's governmental competence to the number of scientists and engineers involved in their government. It may be authori…

Plenty of our democratic leaders have made idiotic self-serving decisions concerning the pandemic too (I'm looking at you, Nancy Pelosi)

Re: Billionaires Build

#514

Post by stopachka »

8note wrote: post #467
stopachka wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is: the passing down of musical aptitude through multiple generations requires each generation to put in approximately the same labor as the previous. Let’s think on that a bit. Consider, if a parent is a musical prodigy, it’s akin to having a fantastic coach at an early age. They can teach you hard-earned insights, help you make the right choices, introduce you to the right people. This makes achievement cons…

Investing well is a worse strategy that investing long. Doing a real low percent gain for 500 years is going to be more predictable than investing well over 5 years

My meaning "investing well", was similar to your meaning of "investing long". I don't meant investing well in the short term.

Even a low percent gain over the long term is very, very difficult. You can tell this by noting how much endowment managers get paid.

Re: Billionaires Build

#516

Post by jbay808 »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #338
canofbars wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone knew about this decades ago. It was even taught in schools as just basic facts and science before it became political.

Could I get your source for this? I've never heard that climate change was taught in public school decades ago.

I remember first learning about it in elementary school in ~1997.

Re: Billionaires Build

#517

Post by krapp »

refurb wrote: post #476
eschaton wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if, say, Jeff Bezos hired his warehouse workers as employees, paid them an inflation-adjusted minimum wage (eg about $25/hr), and offered real benefits, he and his company would still be making massive profits. That’s what makes it unethical and exploitative: They don’t actually need to be paid so little or treated so harshly for the company’s economics to work!

If Amazon hired warehouse workers at $25/hr would it still be making massive profits? Amazon has 1.3M employees in the US and $11B in profit globally . If you increase the wages at the bottom that pushes everyone up (why would a manager of the warehouse workers make less than the people they manage?). So if you divide up that $11B in global profit across all 1.3M US workers, you get $8,700 per worker or maybe $500 ex…

Give the warehouse workers a raise, cut the salaries of the managers and techs making six figures. Problem solved.

Re: Billionaires Build

#518

Post by alisonkisk »

cwkoss wrote: post #502
Aunche wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people agree that a book author deserves a couple dollars every time someone purchases their media. JK Rowling's stories have been read and watched billions of times? Who deserves to control that capital more than JK Rowling herself?

Counterpoint: JK Rowling is now using her billion dollars to fund various "TERF" groups and programs that fight against trans rights and inclusion.

Others would say she's funding groups to protect girls and women against abuse.

Re: Billionaires Build

#519

Post by alisonkisk »

Aunche wrote: post #372
chillwaves wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think most people agree that a book author deserves a couple dollars every time someone purchases their media. JK Rowling's stories have been read and watched billions of times? Who deserves to control that capital more than JK Rowling herself?

Who agrees that, after the first few million copies?

Under the original US Constitution, Harry Potter would be public domain by now.

Re: Billionaires Build

#520

Post by old-gregg »

tartoran wrote: post #364
lotsofpulp wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what should happen to your assets when the total of their market capitalization crosses the $1B line?

> So what should happen to your assets when the total of their market capitalization crosses the $1B line? People who created enormous value in the past were rich but not filthy rich and that was not their goal in the first place. Most of them were happy enough to be paid back in respect, recognition, credit, fanfare, veneration etc..

> People who created enormous value in the past were rich but not filthy rich

Rockefeller's net worth was about 2% of US GDP. IIRC, that's still a record.

Post reply on HN