Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

931–940 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#931
post #369
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…

> That, however, is a strawman. Nobody suggests that at all. People who support more progressive taxation point to things like the New Deal and the strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure and education that propelled the United States forward. You're making that exact argument in fancier words. "strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure" implies…

The problem in Flint and in countless American cities is not incompetence but the invasion of private equity into government. The truism that somehow capital is better at unprofitable public goods like water, prisons etc than the evil lazy government ignores the fact that the steep decline in competent management stems from the clientelist willingness to sell off public properties to private equity under "city managers" who are unaccountable and hold more power than elected officials.

The right-wing strategy is consistently to smear competent government systems while working tirelessly to undermine them with the final goal to sell them for cheap to private interests.

There is a LOT that competent legislation could do to rein this in. But it isn't in the interests of the investor class. So no, the $140 missing part is not the problem, it was a thoroughly corrupt city management that was the problem, and it's brought to you by the same ideology that sees taxing the rich as "unproductive."

Re: Billionaires Build

#932

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heritability studies suggest this is much more strongly mediated by genetic factors (such as IQ and time preference) than social factors.

Thank god, now we can sit back and relax. No need to change anything.

While this is a cynical response, it's kind of true. Many progressive causes are doomed, because almost everything is shockingly heritable. If you try to "break cycles" that actually emerge from acyclic causal networks, at best you will accomplish nothing and at worst you will introduce additional inefficiencies and suffering (more likely).

The one thing you can do that won't be harmful is basically funding genetic selection research, e.g. lowering the cost of IVF embryo selection. This is relatively morally palatable (esp. compared to e.g. eugenics) but will actually have the desired effects.

Re: Billionaires Build

#933

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider - the children of musical prodigies are likely to be more musical then average Is that true though? You made a big claim, without backing, to support your other claim.

I didn’t support the claim, as it seems very apparent to me. Do you think it’s not the case?

I don’t think we should make claims based only on what seems apparent to us.

That isn’t a good path to finding the truth. It only exposes hidden biases and assumptions.

Re: Billionaires Build

#934
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 the ones making all that money are the ones telling you to vote democrat and bring in huge numbers of workers they can pay peanuts instead of having to pay a good wage to an American.

Re: Billionaires Build

#935

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soci…

Nice, this is great! I now feel like digging in might be productive here.

> You've made claims like "this is Germany+" without actually supporting that claim.

I wasn't like, making a legal statement or whatever. You're arguing "this is communism with extra steps" and my point generally is that these prescriptions largely exist in democratically socialist, productive, EU countries. There are actually not that many communist countries that aren't also authoritarian so, I don't think the "communist" characterization is super useful. But, either way I'll expound.

- Enshrine the right to organize

You wrote that the NLRA already created this "right", but it's been hobbled by the Taft-Hartley act [1] and subsequent legislation in multiple states [2].

On the other hand, Germany (like many other EU countries but unlike the US) has ratified the "Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention", which, well it's in the name [3].

- Require equal profit sharing across all employees

Profit sharing is pretty common across EU countries, but it takes different forms and certainly isn't equal. The coop corporate structure is closer to my thinking here but, admittedly it's not mainstream yet.

- Require significant worker representation on corporate boards

We covered this one but, yeah generally the idea here is for workers to have a big say in how their company is run. Definitely not the majority though; my personal preference would be that there were no majority and representation would be equally divided between workers, c-suite/owners, and shareholders, but baby steps.

- 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)

High CEO pay is (variously) subject to tax penalties in Germany [4] [5]. And it seems to be working; their ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay is 136x, just over half the US' at 265x [6]. That's not wonderful and I'm sure there are other factors but, these problems are tricky and one policy probably won't fix it all in one fell swoop.

It's also worth saying CEO pay is generally bad and not meritocratic [7].

- Heavily tax nationally high salaries with a progressive income tax

Germany's 3rd tax bracket is higher than anything in the US and kicks in around $69k (USD) [8].

- Heavily punish tax dodging

Germany does this a little [9] [10] but, obviously not enough. Re: simplify the US tax code, no administration since Reagan has done this, for reasons outlined here [11] [12]. TLDR tax prep is big business, and--like I said before--our tax code does a lot, and changing it creates winners and losers.

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

Germany has a comparatively high minimum wage of €9.35 ($11.33), but I don't know enough to say if that's a living wage or not. Something that's nice about their (relatively new, 2015) law is they have to update it at least every 2 years [13].

- Abolish "right to work"

I've been wrong about what this is called my whole life. Apparently what I mean is "at-will employment". Mea culpa. But, still the US has it and Germany doesn't. We should get rid of it.

---

OK that's my prescriptions. I do feel like what I've described is the natural evolution of democratic socialist policies in the EU, exemplified not just by Germany but other big EU countries as well and definitely don't qualify as communism. But I think a lot of people think democratic socialism is communism so, maybe we just have a definitions problem.

I'll quickly respond to your minimum wage point and say that you can peg minimum wage to a State's CPI, and cities can create their own minimum wages. New York/New York City do this, for example. I wouldn't say that States are handling this well; 1 in 4 kids grows up in poverty so, something is off.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Organise_and_Collecti...

[4]: https://www.firma.de/en/company-formation/ceo-salary-in-a-gm...

[5]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11573-020-00978-y

[6]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/424159/pay-gap-between-c...

[7]: https://www.epi.org/publication/reining-in-ceo-compensation-...

[8]: https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/germany/individual/taxes-on-per...

[9]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ubs-group-face-93m-penalty-11...

[10]: https://www.espn.com/soccer/news/story/_/id/1613004/bayern-m...

[11]: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/why-are-taxes-...

[12]: https://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11417676/elizabeth-warren-tax-...

[13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_Germany

Re: Billionaires Build

#936

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> study after study shows that broadly this is just luck quite confused at this one, what studies? as an example, surely the fact that page and brin created PageRank for web searches led to google being so successful https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/4/20994361/google-alphabet-... > best there's no behavior to encourage, person A just got lucky the behavior of ... understanding and creating a useful service like pager…

> quite confused at [broadly this is just luck], what studies? I would recommend reading Success and Luck [1]; it's well-researched. >> relying on this dynamic entrenches privilege > this is quite ridiculous, this is only believable if you consider... There are pretty good [2] papers [3] about it, which convinced me and might convince you. > so? heard of 'lisa su'? Your post uses a lot of anecdotal evidence, which is…

Anecdotal evidence doesn't really count when it's something you have personal and thorough experience with. Sun sets and rises, don't need study for that. Similarly, people who start and direct large enterprises have a strong command of people and understanding of their field. "Studies" don't disprove that.

> income inequality is a huge problem in the US; societies with dramatic income inequality are historically corrupt and unstable.

This seems ... less than proof of anything. Past societies were highly unequal due to 'half the population gotta farm' at the very least, so comparing them to modern societies seems like a mistake, and at any rate the 'successful' integrating empires were, well, integrating empires. Modern society hasn't existed for that long, and the US (land of inequality!) is quite a bit more stable than many poorer and more income equal (or ... poorer and less income equal!) countries. Historically, societies in europe were much more successful than ones outside europe, yet you wouldn't take that correlation as a causation, so i won't take yours either.

Anyway, you cant just throw a book at me and expect me to read it for a HN comment without laying out its argument at all lol

Your second paper says that 'racial discrimination exists'. The idea that asians somehow derive most of their success from systemic racism and entrenchment - "Overall, these results paint a picture of a rigid income structure by race and ethnicity over time" - seems absurd. Your second paper doesn't say anything about meritocracy though.

Your third study is also just 'black people are poorer'. That doesn't mean understanding of an opportunity (not 'general skill', but local, specific skill) doesn't lead to success. So i'm left with a book (i don't have time to read it, it's midnight) and two papers that don't relate to your point. Maybe asians are just really smart? Maybe they work really hard as kids while the whites play tennis or soccer, which explains why despite being 13% of the population they're 52% of the coders?

Re: Billionaires Build

#937

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

If they have those admirable middle class traits were they born that way? Or is cultural and social inheritance as influential as genetic inheritance? I used to live in an upper middle class area, and a worrying number of the people were very polished thieves. They spent an unholy amount of time fighting over inheritances with other family members and over property boundaries with neighbours. When they worked - inevi…

> Or is cultural and social inheritance as influential as genetic inheritance

No, it isn't. For intelligence, in adulthood, it clearly isn't. For harder to measure skills, current estimates are at around half and half, but the error is mostly in the environment category. So much general-population variance is genetic (and that's only amplified at the highest skill levels - you need great 'cultural and social influence', but also great genes, lol)

> Did they try to marry their own? Naturally - out of snobbery and opportunism if for no other reason.

fun fact, the trait that shows the most assortative mating is intelligence. curious!

> I used to live in an upper middle class area, and a worrying number of the people were very polished thieves.

and I know a worrying number of lower class thieves. '20% of rich people are grifters' doesn't impune rich people as a whole, any more than Tony the crack money launderer impunes poors.

Re: Billionaires Build

#938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 man…

> I disagree that the right way to approach [encouraging entrepreneurship] is by focusing on underserved groups. The right way to approach it is to make it easy for anyone to start a business.

The numbers are real bad though [1] [2] [3]. White people own 80% of small businesses, and men own 64%. In 2012 (admittedly old but, the Census site is very bad) white men owned 2,933,198 firms with employees on the payroll. Everyone else owned 356,816 firms. Those same white men's firms had sales receipts of $8,221,010,815. Other firms had $88,657,443. That's nuts. Even more so when you consider white men are only ~33% of Americans. My guess is that COVID-19 makes this even worse, but who knows really.

> 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.

I 100% agree but, I wouldn't say it's unfortunate. I just think people should get equal pay for equal work, and CEOs aren't 270x more valuable than average workers. Maybe it's 5x, maybe even 10x, but not 270x. And that's salary difference, we're not even factoring in lifetime earnings.

[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/23/the-financi...

[2]: http://www.experian.com/whitepapers/BOLStudy_Experian.pdf

[3]: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=SBOCS2012.SB1200CSA...

Re: Billionaires Build

#939

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> quite confused at [broadly this is just luck], what studies? I would recommend reading Success and Luck [1]; it's well-researched. >> relying on this dynamic entrenches privilege > this is quite ridiculous, this is only believable if you consider... There are pretty good [2] papers [3] about it, which convinced me and might convince you. > so? heard of 'lisa su'? Your post uses a lot of anecdotal evidence, which is…

Anecdotal evidence doesn't really count when it's something you have personal and thorough experience with. Sun sets and rises, don't need study for that. Similarly, people who start and direct large enterprises have a strong command of people and understanding of their field. "Studies" don't disprove that. > income inequality is a huge problem in the US; societies with dramatic income inequality are historically cor…

You are just gonna have to get a different account for me to respond to you. That username is super offensive.

Re: Billionaires Build

#940

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow you knew that then? You must be rich off the stock you bought knowing how big they would get!

No, I didn't have money to buy stock then.

For real. Watching MySpace fizzle in the early 2000's, it wasn't obvious that Facebook would stick around, much less become a publicly traded company, or cultural phenomenon. Similarly, it wasn't obvious that Amazon would ever grow to become what it has. Even if I had $1000 laying around in 2002 or 2012, I would not have bet on an okay internet bookstore, or another social media site.
Post reply on HN