Just Be Rich (2021)

I'd like to see this, too, but all you'd get is companies constantly bellyaching about why is my essential product considered a luxury?? And lobbying to get them on the low tax list rather than the high tax list. Every company is going to have their little excuse about why their product isn't really a luxury.

Consider an environment where a million engineers are all working on their own startups. 99% of them fail and reward the work put into them with nothing. Some subset of the remainder makes barely enough to survive; a smaller subset makes enough to have a successful business; a smaller subset makes millions, and a smaller subset makes the vast majority of the money available. If the effort put into the thing follows a mostly linear line, but the reward is exponential, is this really a good system? Do the people at the top of this structure deserve the wealth they gain, even if they genuinely the best at what they do?

More and more systems today are winner-take-all. Entertainment is notorious for a tiny number of multi-millionaire artists/actors/comedians/etc., while the vast majority of people that try to make it end up with a succession of part-time jobs that never ends. Even if there's no nepotism or corruption, is a system where the people at the top get everything and the bottom gets nothing a good one?

There's something disturbing about PG's take to me - as if only the most successful are deserving, or worthy - that this warped reward structure isn't inherently unjust. It feels like the kind of justifications nobility and royalty relied on, but for modern times - "I worked hard, I found the market, I did everything right, so naturally I deserve more wealth than a human can use in a thousand lifetimes."

So to be honest, I find almost every single one of PG's points worthless. I don't care how easy it is to start a startup if the chance of real money from it is one in a million. I don't care about how much faster growth is when its billions of dollars for a few dozen people. I don't care if the new wealth is genuinely new instead of inherited, if all we get from it is yet another tiny group of obscenely wealthy people - meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And I especially dislike the idea that the "far left" should be happy that "labor has won". Having a system that picks a few hundred of the "most worthy" each year and adds them to the capital class is by no means what I could consider labor winning.

but you're doing a disservice with completely bogus claims like "incomes for lower and middle-class families have fallen since the 80s". it only makes it harder to talk about the real issues and facts, because why would the other side stick to them now? the trust between sides gets further eroded and the gap widens

there's enough real data that we don't have to start making stuff up. the author could have easily pointed to housing instead like you. i think it's actually extremely important to get these facts right. enough to argue about on an internet forum on a sunday evening

These kinds of objections always come up. "But, rich people are oh so clever, and they will exploit loopholes in any law that gets written!" Well, write stronger laws. Don't include exceptions. Lawmakers need to think more than 5 minutes about what kinds of options/resources are available to people, and how those people might game their way into getting around the spirit of the law.

Capital in the sense being discussed (which derives from the same critique of capitalism in which "capitalism" was coined) refers to the non-financial, non-land means of production; one's life savings are not capital, though they may (or may not) be used to acquire capital.

> It’s common to have a goal of retiring someday, and having capital is how you retire.

Having private ownership of capital is important to being able to retire within capitalism. That's a feature of capitalism, not an inherent feature of retirement.

> What would it even mean for labor to “win,” if not by controlling some capital of their own?

It expressly involves control of capital by labor collectively, which is not the same as private ownership of capital.

> Could a union win without a pension plan?

A pension plan is not capital. In a system in which private ownership of capital is a thing, and in which capital ownership is systematically favored throughout society, it will be normal for a pension fund to own capital, but the existence of such a system means that labor has not won.

Also, pension plans aren't essential to unions, they are something unions often provide because providing for retirement is a gap in the system in which they exist that they elect to plug collectively. If labor actually won, that gap would not exist.