Billionaires Build • Hacker News Board

Re: Billionaires Build

#771

Post by pm90 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:19 AM UTC

danans wrote: post #356

imgabe wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a strawman insofar as there are people who literally say exactly that, and those are the people he's addressing. I agree there are more reasonable discussions to be had about how to distribute wealth for the greatest benefit to society but there are people who believe that if we just tax Jeff Bezos more then the Water Authority in Flint, MI will somehow become more competent.

> It's not a strawman insofar as there are people who literally say exactly that People oppose billionaires paying low taxes, and the related lack of public investment in bedrock services and infrastructure they need. When a rural area has no hospital, or a city has crumbling roads and transit, yes, people resent enormously wealthy people for whom those are not concerns. People do not, however, oppose their success a…

> PG is picking a fight with the least sophisticated form of the anti-billionaire argument (i.e. "billionaires suck"), which is beneath him. I get that it's easier to do that than than argue over how the structural issues that allow massive wealth accumulation also undermine the foundations that markets and societies are built on, but it's really beneath PG to choose such a trite argument to oppose.

PG has good ideas and experience in programming and startups, and some fresh perspectives that I enjoyed reading in the early days of HN. His essays today seem to be devoid of that. I can speculate on the reasons why, but that's not useful. He has a huge following, and like any thought leader they will consider his word as gospel. I just wish he would do better.

Re: Billionaires Build

#772

Post by slumpt_ » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:23 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #710

slumpt_ wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. This is entirely reasonable. Sensitive tech workers?

Because it's spoken like someone who has never dealt with human resources inside a company. The people making more money have more options - they'll just leave Amazon. Each role has it's own supply and demand. You can arbitrarily start paying less for a role and not expect there to be a negative impact.

You (and others, evidently) don’t pick up on the tongue in cheek nature of the comment. We all know we can simply raise pay at the bottom without needing to cut (or inflate) anyone else’s pay. They are similarly absurd propositions.

Re: Billionaires Build

#773

Post by ericd » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:28 AM UTC

bccdee wrote: post #702

WalterBright wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days, you can start a successful internet business in your basement with just a computer. Nobody has to see you, your clothes, or your bad manners. You don't need a university education, though you can get one for free online as needed.

No, starting a business takes capital. You can build a Django website from your basement for free, but to turn it into a profitable business takes cash.

It does? A $5/mo droplet can serve a good amount of traffic. And there are lots of free ways to get some initial users, they just take time. I know because I’ve done exactly that.

This kind of can’t-do attitude really saddens me. I see it all the time in these discussions about wealth inequality.

Re: Billionaires Build

#774

Post by pm90 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:28 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #578

arrosenberg wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. No, it's one possible remedy, and historically it doesn't appear to have worked very well. The fundamental problem with taxation is that governments are even worse than individual billionaires like Jeff Bezos at choosing what to do with large amounts of money. Another possible remedy is to reduce the power of governments, so there is less value to be captured b…

> The fundamental problem with taxation is that governments are even worse than individual billionaires like Jeff Bezos at choosing what to do with large amounts of money.

Citation needed. When Governments had lots of revenue, they assist the population with public services, which tend to benefit the lowest stratum of society the most. But the cumulative effect is to raise the quality of life of society as a whole. There is little evidence that billionaires have that kind of effect on society as a whole (outside of a few notable exceptions like Gates).

Having a billionaire class that has so much resources that they can influence public policy and Government... is an even worse outcome, and could be considered the only reason to dismantle this class. The Government is elected by the people (in a democracy) and having mini-kings is absolutely detrimental to the health of our democracy.

Re: Billionaires Build

#775

Post by pm90 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:38 AM UTC

robswc wrote: post #719

arrosenberg wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens if taxing the rich doesn't fix it and actually makes things worse? How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? I don't get it - America doesn't have a Communist party, what are you picturing happening here? > Disproportionate to what? Me. If he wants a policy to change, he has lobbyists and the Washington Post. If I want to change a policy I have to s…

>How is it going to be worse if Jeff Bezos is worth $50,000,000,000 instead of $180,000,000,000? on the inverse, how much worse has it gotten since Jeff Bezos went from $50b to $180b? It keeps coming back to the fact that there is such a focus on "wealth" or whatever. That's like asking "how is this tax bad if it literally makes more tax revenue?" - the answer is that it will have unforeseen consequences (or even for…

Please try making arguments in good faith without invoking so many logical fallacies. Here is a good guide to avoiding them: https://thethinkingshop.org/collections/products/products/lo...

Re: Billionaires Build

#776

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:41 AM UTC

confidantlake wrote: post #663

robswc wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? $10-20 an hour is better than minimum wage and a few years ago I worked a labor job that "only" paid $12.00/hr. Is Jeff Bezo's personal net worth the causation behind someone not being able to support a family? What about Zuckerberg, what is the average salary of a FB employee? If its above a certain amount is that a "moral" billionaire? I would argue that pursuit of profits can lead to bad things for employees.…

My view is that "creating" a billion dollar company is a misleading description. I view it more as "capturing" a billion. You mention FB. With network effects, it is inevitable that there will be a few large dominate social media companies. If it wasn't Zuckerberg it would have been someone else. I view these people not as pioneers pushing us forward but as lottery winners. Why should the lucky one on top capture mos…

> I am not sure why you feel that "taxing rich people" makes everyone worse off. 60 years ago a man with a high school diploma could support a middle class life for a family of 4. Taxes on the highest earners were much higher than they were today.

Tax rates were higher but there were far more deductions. The effective rate was similar to that of today.

60-70 years ago a man with an HS diploma could support a family due to massive demand for labor. This was mainly because America was the economic engine that provided for the reconstruction of the world after WW2. Go back another 15 years to pre-WW2 and shit was pretty bleak even with high taxes.

> You mention FB. With network effects, it is inevitable that there will be a few large dominate social media companies. If it wasn't Zuckerberg it would have been someone else.

It was someone else, it was MySpace and Friendster and other trashy shit. Facebook brought a vastly better user experience that seems mundane in retrospect but it won because it was so much better. Like it or not, Facebook did innovate a lot early on and had a unique, clean, consistent experience. They made social media mainstream. It was not a given this would happen.

Re: Billionaires Build

#777

Post by pm90 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:41 AM UTC

violiner wrote: post #737

danans wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not a strawman insofar as there are people who literally say exactly that People oppose billionaires paying low taxes, and the related lack of public investment in bedrock services and infrastructure they need. When a rural area has no hospital, or a city has crumbling roads and transit, yes, people resent enormously wealthy people for whom those are not concerns. People do not, however, oppose their success a…

Serious question: You say that engaging with the least sophisticated form of the argument is beneath him, but if that's the form of the argument he chooses to engage in, is it?

I think it is understood from the context that PG is assumed to be a person of above average intellect and is thus expected to use more sophisticated and less lazy forms of arguments. That expectation sets the bar for the kind of argument he is expected to make. I believe the logical fallacy your statement is exhibiting is called "Begging the question" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question.

Re: Billionaires Build

#778

Post by IanCal » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:44 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #552

IanCal wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In good idle games they shift the goal once you hit more boring levels. Stealing partly from someone else I can't find a reference for: Ownership capped at 1 billion, you get a sticker saying "I won capitalism" and all further growth and income goes to the government for social programs. You get a new ticker that estimates lives saved and people homes/fed/educated - that becomes your new boasting figure. Not entirely…

...you get a sticker... Consider for a moment what privileges would have to attach to this sticker, in order for the billionaires to let this through Congress. Definitely they would still want to have control of dominant cultural narratives, and they'd still want to write all the laws, and those of them who appreciate fabulous personal possessions would still appreciate those. The administration of this sticker would…

It's telling that the responses to a non-serious tax plan are not on the topic "why billionaires existing is inherently good" but like this where you argue that billionaires have too much control over the democratic process for it to be implemented and a concern over the administration of a small scale sticker run.

Re: Billionaires Build

#779

Post by ericd » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:45 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…

The expected monetary value of the average software engineer’s work working at Google is much higher than that of the same engineer working at a small company, launching the same product. The difference is the leverage provided by the structure that is Google - the audience, brand, machinery, etc. The software is important, but so is the massive built-in audience.

It is the company’s structure accounts for the majority of the value created by that engineer’s work. So, how is it exploitation to give them less than the total profit created?

Re: Billionaires Build

#780

Post by kraf » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:48 AM UTC

What a naive point to make. As if what people want is in some way inherently good and righteous. I might believe something like this when talking about millionaires but people accruing thousands of millions do so by exploitation at the very least more often than not.