11–20 of 126 posts
I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.
I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.
It doesn't need to be that complicated. Just increase taxes on the ultra wealthy to restore some semblance of equality. it doesn't need to be communist russia. Just a little more money going around.
Until there's an aggressive international agreement on closing tax loopholes, raising the taxes only impacts the barely-rich (doctors, lawyers, etc).
I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.
>Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function. So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations?
Should anyone suggest to prevent passing as much as, say, $100k to your child (an approximate price of a university tuition), said anyone will see a massive push back from basically all strata of the society.
I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.
>Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function. So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations?
That wouldn't help much. The children of the wealthy benefit from connections obtained while their parents are still alive. They receive a head start from birth. By the time they are in line to receive an inheritance, they have already had more opportunities for success than the general public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function. So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations?
> So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations? That wouldn't help much. The children of the wealthy benefit from connections obtained while their parents are still alive. They receive a head start from birth. By the time they are in line to receive an inheritance, they have already had more opportunities for success than the general public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function. So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations?
Neither Gates, nor Jobs, nor Zuckerberg, nor Bezos, nor Musk inherited their billions. At best they inherited access to the social circles of their parents, and maybe paid-for education (too lazy to check). Knowing the right people is not something you can, or want, to limit or forbid. Should anyone suggest to prevent passing as much as, say, $100k to your child (an approximate price of a university tuition), said an…
Zuckerberg is worth >3x the annual income of all surgeons in the US. It is implausible that his net worth reflects his replacement cost. Even PG has said (to Zuckerberg) that if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else.
I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.
It doesn't need to be that complicated. Just increase taxes on the ultra wealthy to restore some semblance of equality. it doesn't need to be communist russia. Just a little more money going around.
I always like to say that we live in an exponential meritocracy , where your accumulated merit enhances your ability to accumulate more merit, eventually resulting in a small minority rapidly pulling ahead of the pack. Goes with the old adage: turning $100 into $120 is work; turning $100 million into $120 million is inevitable. Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function.
You’d have economic prosperity like in the USA between 1945 and 1970.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Perhaps we need a linear meritocratic function. So basically, some way to prevent wealth from being passed across generations?
Neither Gates, nor Jobs, nor Zuckerberg, nor Bezos, nor Musk inherited their billions. At best they inherited access to the social circles of their parents, and maybe paid-for education (too lazy to check). Knowing the right people is not something you can, or want, to limit or forbid. Should anyone suggest to prevent passing as much as, say, $100k to your child (an approximate price of a university tuition), said an…
(Note: I'm not saying the funding from parents was sufficient, or even necessary in Bezos' case.)