Billionaires Build • Hacker News Board

Re: Billionaires Build

#921

Post by fastball » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #918

fastball wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interested to see how quickly you can completely destroy productivity and an economy with your policies. It just sounds like communism with extra steps.

Eh, it's really just Germany+, and they're a pretty productive country. For example, profit sharing is "stock compensation" rephrased and not terribly uncommon [1]. Some of the most productive companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon pay with stock. [1]: http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/2409883.pdf

It very much does not sound like Germany+.

> Enshrine the right to organize

As in with a constitutional amendment? Because the NRLA already guarantees this.

> Require equal profit sharing across all employees

Germany does not do this and neither should the US.

> Require significant worker representation on corporate boards

Germany does not do this and neither should the US.

> Heavily tax relatively high salaries, e.g. if everyone makes $1m then 0 tax. If one person makes $100k and 99 others make $1, insane super tax them down to $100 (include tricky stuff like bonuses or whatever)

Germany doesn't do this and neither should the US.

> Heavily tax nationally high salaries with a progressive income tax.

The US already does this, as the US does not have a flat tax rate for income tax.

> Heavily punish tax dodging

Addressing symptoms not causes. Reduce tax avoidance by simplifying the tax code. It's that simple.

> Set the minimum wage to a living wage and pin it to the CPI

Probably a good idea.

> Abolish "right to work"

Terrible idea.

Re: Billionaires Build

#922

Post by derangedHorse » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 6:58 PM 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…

“But what people are saying is that the narrative that billionaires built their wealth themselves is false and that they should be taxed heavily in recognition of the fact that they built their wealth off of the work of others.”

So are you saying that there should be a higher tax for a person who profits off the labor of someone else?

Surely the person who constructed the system (that gave opportunity to the other individual they’re profiting off of) added some benefit to the other individual as well, otherwise wouldn’t the other individual work for himself or elsewhere?

Or is the argument that there is always a moral cap on how much profit a person can make off someone else?

Re: Billionaires Build

#923

Post by notSupplied » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #517

refurb wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if the warehouse workers outnumber the tech and managers 100:1? With >1 million employees, that ratio is likely pretty steep, in which case, even if all managers and tech workers were paid zero, it still wouldn’t move the needle for everyone else.

Re: Billionaires Build

#924

Post by notSupplied » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #603

imgabe wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

The general structure is that all businesses rely on the government to maintain the courts and enforce contracts, and they are all built upon public commons. Taxation is not theft, pay your share. Entrepreneurialism is at an all-time low in this low-tax, finance-happy environment, so I don't see how you can conclude that low taxes are good for creativity. It seems like it's been pretty good for concentration - low ta…

Taxation to pay 1. “your fair share of the public commons”, which all big businesses benefit from, is very different from 2. taxation to reduce poverty, which is also different from 3. taxation to eliminate rich people.

Am I wrong in sensing that you believe in a bit of #3?

Re: Billionaires Build

#925

Post by Privacy846 » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 8:48 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #814

Privacy846 wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a recent quote from the Marxist rag The Economist: > One reason for the measure’s current strength is that the balance of power seems to have moved in favour of capital, and against labour, in recent decades. The decline of trade unions, and the addition of China to the global market, have weakened workers’ bargaining power; in the past 15 years, corporate profits have been regularly equivalent to more than 10…

This has nothing to do with labor theory of value.

It is, however, relevant to my claim—which you took such offense to—that it is virtually impossible to become a self-made billionaire. The Economist author seems to agree that capitalist class struggle will help the would-be billionaire, not just his ability (pace Graham) to Build.

Re: Billionaires Build

#926

Post by camgunz » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #921

camgunz wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, it's really just Germany+, and they're a pretty productive country. For example, profit sharing is "stock compensation" rephrased and not terribly uncommon [1]. Some of the most productive companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon pay with stock. [1]: http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/2409883.pdf

It very much does not sound like Germany+. > Enshrine the right to organize As in with a constitutional amendment? Because the NRLA already guarantees this. > Require equal profit sharing across all employees Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Require significant worker representation on corporate boards Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Heavily tax relatively high salaries, e.g…

I don't know how to say this without sounding super condescending but, if you want to have a discussion, please contribute to it in a meaningful way. You aren't asking questions, citing sources, or even making good new points. Beyond that, you're really uninformed.

Here's an example where you could have done even a little token searching; the title of this article is "Workers on Corporate Boards? Germany’s Had Them for Decades" [1].

Another example is when you write:

> Addressing symptoms not causes. Reduce tax avoidance by simplifying the tax code. It's that simple.

It truly is not that simple. There's a reason tax codes are complicated and broadly speaking, it's that you have to choose winners and losers to simplify them and that's politically and policy-wise very, very difficult.

I'm sure you'd like to dispute that, but the way you'll dispute it is with normative, opaque statements like "it's that simple" or "terrible idea" which will take you 8 minutes. The way I'll engage is by searching the internet and citing a post, and asking good questions to keep the conversation going. That will take an hour.

I'm not gonna do that, and I think this breakdown makes it clear why. I think you should keep in mind what you're asking of people you're having a discussion with, either implicitly or explicitly, and how your responses indicate what you're expecting to get out of a discussion. From where I sit, you're not looking to learn anything or to inform me of something, you're looking to win an argument. Sometimes that's productive but it's surprisingly rare, and besides that, I'm not interested. I haven't learned anything from you over the 3-4 threads you've chased me down on, but I do feel a little worse about humanity, and I get enough of that already.

And overall, I'd urge you to take a moment to consider the damage you do by logging onto public forums and spreading your ill-informed, normative opinions around. It greatly reduces the signal to noise ratio, and because it takes a lot of time to respond to things like this, it effectively DoS's productive conversations. I love a good internet argument as much as the next mega-arrogant software engineer but, we need to keep in mind the effect that has.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/opinion/warren-workers-bo...

Re: Billionaires Build

#927

Post by fastball » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 9:23 PM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #926

fastball wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very much does not sound like Germany+. > Enshrine the right to organize As in with a constitutional amendment? Because the NRLA already guarantees this. > Require equal profit sharing across all employees Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Require significant worker representation on corporate boards Germany does not do this and neither should the US. > Heavily tax relatively high salaries, e.g…

I don't know how to say this without sounding super condescending but, if you want to have a discussion, please contribute to it in a meaningful way. You aren't asking questions, citing sources, or even making good new points. Beyond that, you're really uninformed. Here's an example where you could have done even a little token searching; the title of this article is "Workers on Corporate Boards? Germany’s Had Them f…

What is all this research you are talking about you doing? I don't see it. You've provided two links in response to two of your many points. You've made claims like "this is Germany+" without actually supporting that claim. The burden of proof is on you to prove this is Germany+ (as the one making the claim), not me.

I have no interest in winning the argument, I have an interest in the truth and sound fiscal and social policies that result in a good balance of strong economy + innovation + lack of exploitation.

For all the things in the discussion that you claim Germany does that make its economy stronger, you need to demonstrate that. For all the things in the discussion that Germany is not doing, you need to justify why they are good, as the one making the claim that they are good ideas. You have not done so. You made a list, and are now claiming everyone else is arguing in bad faith when they ask you to justify that list. My response was not very high effort because I was not actually responded to a thoroughly sourced list. It was just a list.

You accurately stated that I was incorrect about co-determination in Germany. I read your point as "majority representation on boards", when what you actually said was "significant" – an error on my part. Germany does indeed do that, and as such the policy would indeed fall under "Germany+". However, I maintain that amongst all your other bullet points, the only other point that 1. Germany does 2. US does not is living wage. And one (good) argument for why the federal minimum wage is not particularly looked after / updated is because the US is a federation of strong states, so minimum wage is better handled by states individually (which they currently do). Cost of living in Montana is very different from NYC.

Re: Billionaires Build

#928

Post by fastball » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #919

fastball wrote: post #916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of being person A if you don't get any benefit over person B/C/D? Why would anyone take on the extra work and risk of being the person that starts the business when you can just be the person that joins and effectively get the exact same things with 1. less work 2. less risk?

Yeah that's a great point. I think we should make it a lot less risky to start businesses. You shouldn't have to risk give up earning years or career building years, to say nothing of the financial burden of raising money (or competing with people who are able to raise money while you have to bootstrap instead). I think we should do this both generally, but also specifically for women, people of color, and other grou…

I agree that we should encourage everyone to be an entrepreneur. I disagree that the right way to approach it is by focusing on underserved groups. The right way to approach it is to make it easy for anyone to start a business.

The unfortunate reality is that you will never be able to pick from a menu of all possible career options because you (whoever you are) are not cut out for all possible careers. There are many people in the world who are better suited to doing job X, even if you think you'd like to do job X more.

Re: Billionaires Build

#929

Post by varjag » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

Privacy846 wrote: post #925

varjag wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with labor theory of value.

It is, however, relevant to my claim—which you took such offense to—that it is virtually impossible to become a self-made billionaire. The Economist author seems to agree that capitalist class struggle will help the would-be billionaire, not just his ability (pace Graham) to Build.

No, I called you precisely on labor theory of value. It is nothing short of incredible you manage to read between the lines in a one-liner.

It is obvious that you can't really have any social advancement without any supporting social dynamics. Also odds are overwhelmingly against any given individual becoming a billionaire from a commoner background… yet the examples are numerous, and particularly in tech.

I'm not commenting about merits of Graham's observations as am not a venture capitalist. But the LTV bit you were on, that's some ancient bullshit. I lived in the tail end of USSR, could observe first hand how well it worked.

Re: Billionaires Build

#930

Post by spopejoy » Sun, Dec 06, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #776

confidantlake wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> Facebook brought a vastly better user experience that seems mundane in retrospect but it won because it was so much better.

My impression is more that FB won because of Zuck's talent/luck/vision for weird acquisitions (instagram, whatsapp) that paid off in ways nobody foresaw. Facebook was by no means the clear winner then, and I would argue most of it's success since then has been first-mover in global markets. FB engagement has been in decline in the US for years.