4 ms·

More and more examples of how the money is going to fewer and fewer hands and workers are less and less needed. This is why we need Socialism and a basic incom

More and more examples of how the money is going to fewer and fewer hands and workers are less and less needed. This is why we need Socialism and a basic income. Kodak's 140k employees vs. Instagram's 30 odd. Snapchat $15B valuation for 330 employees. Now this guy has made (and runs) a $100 million business singlehandedly... What used to take 100s of employees to accomplish can be done with a handful, and it's only going to get worse as tools get more sophisticated and automation more widespread. It's great for GDP overall, we just need the government to enforce that society's success can be shared among all people and not just a handful of lucky ones.

kobayashi 11y ago
>basic income yes. >socialism no.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - robzyb 11y ago
    > Vote with your dollars then. Usually that is said in the context of economics or capitalism. I've never heard it apply to actual politics before. Its almost scary in the context of actual politics.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
avodonosov 11y ago
> .. What used to take 100s of employees to accomplish can be done with a handful, and it's only going to get worse IMHO this means we can do more now, so it's going to get _better_
branchan 11y ago
Wait, were you comparing Kodak's product portfolio with Instagram's?
- leesalminen 11y ago
  I'm assuming GP is talking about "pictures", and not any of the other things Kodak does. It makes for a very stimulating sentence, though!
weddpros 11y ago
So a "lucky" guy benefits from "society's success"? Is it really how you see things? That's the very definition of envy to me.
- pyrrhotech 11y ago
  I'm more successful than 99.9% of people on the planet and 95% in the Bay Area by my current income and net worth, and yes 95% of that success is from pure luck (being born into a wealthy family, having my college paid for, being able to attend elite prep schools, starting life 500k in the black instead of 250k in the hole, and good life skills about how to save and invest instead of spend all my money...). I'm not selfish and I know I don't deserve this, it's just luck of the draw for the most part. I wish we didn't live in this pseudo-aristocratic society, and I want to do everything I can to give back and change so that future generations can be more equal.
  - weddpros 11y ago
    There's a huge difference between acquired wealth and inherited wealth. Don't consider luck is the only way to success just because it was yours. Socialism might give you good feelings, but might as well make it harder for those who were not lucky like you and count on hard work instead. That's inequality, one I'm more concerned with.
retube 11y ago
Absurd cherry picking of random companies. Vast majority of big enterprises employee thousands of people. The fact that, thanks to technology, one person can single-handedly create enormous value is a huge boon for society. And anyway these kinds of ventures support the jobs and business models of their customers. The fact that the cost of starting a business and reaching a huge audience is now a tiny fraction of what it used to be benefits us all - now we all have opportunities that were impossible before. Far from creating inequality technology is actually proving a huge leveller: look at how much wealth has been created in the developing world over the last couple of decades. It is ironic that capitalism is in fact driving what you claim to desire: a fairer redistribution of wealth. That it's happening at a global level however, rather than confined to nation states, means that you, as a (presumably) US citizen, are losing out to the competition overseas. But what's wrong with that? Isn't that the socialist ideal - everybody equal? Or is wealth redistribution only fair when it's people richer than you that have to share?

kobayashi 11y ago

>basic income yes. >socialism no.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- robzyb 11y ago
  > Vote with your dollars then. Usually that is said in the context of economics or capitalism. I've never heard it apply to actual politics before. Its almost scary in the context of actual politics.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

avodonosov 11y ago

> .. What used to take 100s of employees to accomplish can be done with a handful, and it's only going to get worse IMHO this means we can do more now, so it's going to get _better_

branchan 11y ago

Wait, were you comparing Kodak's product portfolio with Instagram's?

leesalminen 11y ago
I'm assuming GP is talking about "pictures", and not any of the other things Kodak does. It makes for a very stimulating sentence, though!

weddpros 11y ago

So a "lucky" guy benefits from "society's success"? Is it really how you see things? That's the very definition of envy to me.

pyrrhotech 11y ago
I'm more successful than 99.9% of people on the planet and 95% in the Bay Area by my current income and net worth, and yes 95% of that success is from pure luck (being born into a wealthy family, having my college paid for, being able to attend elite prep schools, starting life 500k in the black instead of 250k in the hole, and good life skills about how to save and invest instead of spend all my money...). I'm not selfish and I know I don't deserve this, it's just luck of the draw for the most part. I wish we didn't live in this pseudo-aristocratic society, and I want to do everything I can to give back and change so that future generations can be more equal.
- weddpros 11y ago
  There's a huge difference between acquired wealth and inherited wealth. Don't consider luck is the only way to success just because it was yours. Socialism might give you good feelings, but might as well make it harder for those who were not lucky like you and count on hard work instead. That's inequality, one I'm more concerned with.

retube 11y ago

Absurd cherry picking of random companies. Vast majority of big enterprises employee thousands of people. The fact that, thanks to technology, one person can single-handedly create enormous value is a huge boon for society. And anyway these kinds of ventures support the jobs and business models of their customers. The fact that the cost of starting a business and reaching a huge audience is now a tiny fraction of what it used to be benefits us all - now we all have opportunities that were impossible before. Far from creating inequality technology is actually proving a huge leveller: look at how much wealth has been created in the developing world over the last couple of decades. It is ironic that capitalism is in fact driving what you claim to desire: a fairer redistribution of wealth. That it's happening at a global level however, rather than confined to nation states, means that you, as a (presumably) US citizen, are losing out to the competition overseas. But what's wrong with that? Isn't that the socialist ideal - everybody equal? Or is wealth redistribution only fair when it's people richer than you that have to share?