Billionaires Build • Hacker News Board

Re: Billionaires Build

#641

Post by kevas » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:35 AM UTC

NineStarPoint wrote: post #591

kevas wrote: post #312

About to write some possibly controversial stuff... My early life, I grew up and had middle to upper middle class all around me. In my late teens and early twenties, there were times I had to scrounge my cushions and rummage through my car to find enough change to eat a meal. We live in a society where everyone has access to a computer—personal or local library. We have all the information we need to bring (the major…

It’s also worth noting that people who are in poverty often don’t have the option to talk back in the work place. They’re scared for a reason, if they talk back and get fired they lose their apartment. They can’t feed their kids. So on. And the sort of jobs that people in poverty have to work aren’t jobs that have to care about treating their employees well, they’re jobs that have no issue finding new cogs to place i…

Your comment only talks about their current job and not the jobs that they’ll have in the future if one dedicates themselves to spending time after work and family to learning a new skill that will promote them to another career or position.

I completely agree that in roles where you are at the bottom of the totem, you can’t talk back since one is replaceable at that level. However, it’s not about speaking up at that job, rather leanings the skills needed to get another job where you’re not at the bottom of the totem.

I was in this position and I despised it.

I’m not saying it’s easy; I’m not saying that the internal fight to watch tv/relax instead of the more difficult task of studying/learning will ever stop, but what I’m saying is that there are tools available to everyone who asks for it.

What I’d love to know more about is how can one change their outlook in a systematic way? How can people who don’t have the notion of they can be more, be more? How.... so many questions.

Re: Billionaires Build

#642

Post by kevas » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:36 AM UTC

istjohn wrote: post #531

kevas wrote: post #312

About to write some possibly controversial stuff... My early life, I grew up and had middle to upper middle class all around me. In my late teens and early twenties, there were times I had to scrounge my cushions and rummage through my car to find enough change to eat a meal. We live in a society where everyone has access to a computer—personal or local library. We have all the information we need to bring (the major…

There was a study that found that blue collar and white collar parents have distinct parenting styles. Blue collar parents are more authoritarian. They teach their children to obey authority, which as it happens is what is generally required to succeed in a blue collar job. White collar parents teach their children to think for themselves and be assertive, behaviors that are--perhaps not coincidentally--rewarded in w…

Do you have a link to that study as I’d love to read it.

Re: Billionaires Build

#643

Post by Meditato » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:38 AM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #330

throwaway09223 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a straw man, it is an extremely common belief and it deserves to be addressed and debunked. My social media is stuffed to the brim with people posting exactly this sentiment. It is true that there are other, more reasonable beliefs.

I think Paul is fundamentally not understanding the argument behind “billionaires exploit workers.” It isn’t that billionaires are fundamentally bad people or that they’ve accumulated their wealth through misdeeds. But what it is is that it’s basically impossible to accumulate that amount of wealth through work. Instead, you have to be able to capture the difference between the value of someone else’s work and what y…

Also, his idea that "making something people want" precludes exploitation is naive at best. It's easier to make something that the masses want by exploiting people along the way. As a former bay area startup engineer, I saw this all the time...including in two different YC companies.

Re: Billionaires Build

#644

Post by dang » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

existencebox wrote: post #507

dang wrote: post #346

(I originally posted this as a reply to a different comment but detached it because I don't want to pick on anyone personally, or appear to.) I think what underlies the outrage in this and similar threads is simple: people expect everything anybody says about "billionaires" to be bad. If someone breaks the rule, it doesn't matter what they say; the response will be just this outrage. And if they're a billionaire them…

I actually don't think it's particularly weird. I would cite various research on studies investigating "fairness" [0] (Citing this one re: corvids since I need to get back to work and this was a quick google, but it chain-cites papers in primates, dogs, humans, found what appears to be a meta-study here [1] as well) Namely, that individuals will decline to participate in exchanges where they would benefit, if another…

I think I agree with all of this! The weird part though is how simple the underlying behavior is, even though it masquerades as complex, and how little this gets mentioned.

Re: Billionaires Build

#645

Post by bumby » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:41 AM UTC

bedhead wrote: post #378

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…

You are right about the feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty. The most uncomfortable one to talk about is basic social network effects. Two people meet at some prestigious college and get married - are we shocked they have children who are predisposed for success? Besides from having god-given IQ, they are likely some combination of ambitious, punctual, respectful of authority, long-term oriented, hard-…

>It's pretty rare.

I think it was in The Meritocracy Trap that spoke to how this is a relatively recent phenomenon that is exacerbates wealth inequality. Previously it appears to have intermarriage between social classes

Re: Billionaires Build

#646

Post by confidantlake » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:41 AM UTC

UK-Al05 wrote: post #462

ruined wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, one might make a moral judgement that exploitation is a tendency of capitalism, if one believes that people who control more capital have structural power over those who control less or no capital, thus narrowing the viable subjective preferences in a way that is "bad". but ltv on its own provides no such judgement, it simply describes the material relationship.

LTV on its own shows very little predictive value in the real world. Which is why it isn't used. Marginal economics explains and models a lot things we see in reality. I'm much more likely to believe a model that has predictive ability.

I agree with that predictive ability is important but I have seen no evidence that marginal economics has predictive ability. You yourself even say it "explains and models" which is not the same as predicts.

Re: Billionaires Build

#647

Post by greenyouse » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:41 AM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #588

[..] What YC looks for, above all, is founders who understand some group of users and can make what they want. This is so important that it's YC's motto: "Make something people want."[..] And what people want is ways and means to satisfy one of the ‘seven sins’ : “Pride. Greed. Lust. Envy. Gluttony. Wrath. Sloth.” Facebook satisfies all the seven urges to sin.

Alan Kay had an interesting talk about designing for the future. One part was on building a company to appeal to basic instincts vs creating tools and systems to benefit people.

https://youtu.be/1e8VZlPBx_0?t=2814

There are universal human traits that have negative impacts on people over the long-term but are craved during the short-term. These are like legal drugs. If you can use a few of these traits and tie them to an addictive feedback loop, then you probably have a product that's successful (and totally evil). It's concerning that some of the bestselling books in the startup bubble are about how to create these addictions in people.

It would be nice if there were more tools and systems companies for helping humanity grow. I guess most modern day big companies are like a mix of the two. For every major social network there are usually some awesome engineering tools that get open sourced. It's harder to create a tools only or systems only kind of company but they're definitely nice since they expand the way we all think.

Re: Billionaires Build

#648

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:43 AM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #489

cactus2093 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your explanation I see the feedback loop that makes it easier for you and your children to stay out of poverty if you're already successful. I don't see a feedback loop that makes it hard to escape poverty. Why did the high school dropouts drop out in the first place, and why does that make their kid more likely to drop out? Ideally their kid should still have access to public school education, with all the tools…

> I don't see a feedback loop that makes it hard to escape poverty Really? You’re 16 years old, you’ve a high IQ and a passion for programming. Your parents are alcoholics. You don’t have nice clothes. You don’t have perfect manners because it’s just not the world you live in. How do you get to the university admissions interview in the next town? How will you compete against the mannerly, well turned out student wit…

[deleted]

Re: Billionaires Build

#649

Post by arrosenberg » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:46 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #635

arrosenberg wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be fine, I'm not that rich. I'm also not that heavily invested in Amazon, so I'd be even more fine. Again, how will things be worse if Jeff Bezos was worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? That's what was supposed - that it would make things worse if we made him pay a fair rate to the American people for helping maintain his wealth.

Jeff Bezos does not exist in a vacuum. There is no world in which you reduce Bezos' net worth by that much without affecting the rest of the economy. I already mentioned a couple possible effects. I'm sure there are many others including ones that nobody will think of until after they happen. I also don't see how you talk about fair while proposing to enact a special tax to target one specific individual. That seems…

It's strange you won't answer the question. I haven't prescribed what would happen to the money, simply that the rich need to take a haircut to make things more even. If you also pursue a more robust, less concentrated economy more generally, you could certainly invest the money in entrepreneurship, small farms, improved IT infrastructure, etc., etc. That would do more good for the economy than letting Jeff launch it into space. Again, we've done this kind of thing before, and the billionaires and their defenders ho-hummed the same tune, and all that happened was the emergence of the middle class and fairly broad economic prosperity. We've also see what happens when we let the concentration of wealth continue.

> That seems more like a personal vendetta than an economic policy.

Won't somebody please think of the poor billionaire! I'm using him as an example, because he's first on the list, but feel free to substitute whatever name or array of names you want if it makes it more palatable for you. FWIW, there is historical precedent for passing a tax law targeting the single richest person in the country (John D. Rockerfeller at the time).

Re: Billionaires Build

#650

Post by mattigames » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:47 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

Those feedback loops are directly created by wealthy people for wealthy people, because politicians like money like just everyone else its easy to manipulate them into creating feedback loops that help those wealthy folks amaze even more wealth. The more corruptible the politicians are the more the wealth gap increases, from there is easy to conclude why millions are struggling to get by even in the wealthiest nation on paper.