4 ms·

This is spot on. I think it is important to evaluate PG's essay within context. He, like most people in Silicon Valley, is stuck in a bubble and views the rest

This is spot on. I think it is important to evaluate PG's essay within context. He, like most people in Silicon Valley, is stuck in a bubble and views the rest of the world through a very distorted lens. That's where much of his rhetoric about wealth creation comes from: he's surrounded by people (founders) who create value in the form of software. When a portion of those founders become rich, he looks at himself as a promoter of inequality. What he doesn't realize is that the vast majority of wealthy people did not become wealthy by creating value, but by playing zero-sum games -- and then by influencing politicians and bending the system to their will so as to guarantee that they will hold on to as much of that wealth as possible. I think the question PG needs to address is this: what is the justification for non-founder executives getting paid tens of millions of dollars at the expense of other employees? What is the justification for those top-level salaries to exist even when the company is doing badly and regular employees don't see a dime in raises or bonuses that year? Bottom line is that the type of wealth PG enables founders to create, and the subsequent inequality, is not the type society has a problem with. Sure, some people may balk at the idea of an instant-messaging app being valued in the billions, but those controversies tend to be completely detached from the inequality debate. Now, if PG ever starts preaching that founder CEOs should pay themselves millions of dollars while keeping salaries as low as possible... that would be a different story. As things stand though, I don't think he's part of the problem and measures to address inequality won't really affect him and his crew.

phaus 11y ago
>I think the question PG needs to address is this: what is the justification for non-founder executives getting paid tens of millions of dollars at the expense of other employees? What is the justification for those top-level salaries to exist even when the company is doing badly and regular employees don't see a dime in raises or bonuses that year? I definitely agree that its a shitty situation. However, as far as I understand it the justification is that executive salaries are public which led to a salary arms-race where companies are forced to throw more and more ridiculous sums of money at executives.
- CPLX 11y ago
  That's the convenient dodge. The source of the problem whereby the trustees of publically owned companies both determine and benefit from high salaries is plainly obvious as a principal-agent problem.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    There's a reason why in the US, the federal Constitution contains explicit clauses to stop things like Congress voting themselves an unaccountable salary increase (it can't take effect for any individual member until after their next election) or creating/giving raises to other government positions they'll switch into (after creating or raising the pay of a position, they become ineligible to hold it until after their term in Congress expires -- which led to some interesting debates over whether it's legal to reduce a previously-raised salary to its original level in order to appoint a current member of Congress to it).
hkmurakami 11y ago
>Bottom line is that the type of wealth PG enables founders to create, and the subsequent inequality, is not the type society has a problem with. Seems like people are increasingly displeased at founders' preferential tax treatment of their shares though.
PaulHoule 11y ago
PG is in a bubble and has a distorted view, but unlike a lot of rich people, he's a real producer. Y Combinator has made the world a better place in terms of new businesses, wealth created, people trained, etc. Also PG and Sam Altman are very responsive to critics, they understand that they live in a bubble and that other people have a valid point of view. Compare that to the essays written by the people at Andressen Horowitz which vary from "let them eat cake" to the kind of rich people complaining that people criticizing them are ruining the economy for the rest of us as Paul Krugman has recently pointed out.
- hobs 11y ago
  Yeah, I submitted this article not because I think pg needs to have vitriol heaped upon him as much as the article really missed the meat of the issue and this was a good response.
  - PaulHoule 11y ago
    I agree with you. He's the right person to engage in a dialog.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
How can he miss this: http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/opinion/ctl-child-poverty/#0 http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/opinion/ctl-child... ? Maybe he sees the poor, but labels them as lazy and not driven. It makes it easier to explain how some people worry about how their car doors open, while others worry about their next meal.

phaus 11y ago

>I think the question PG needs to address is this: what is the justification for non-founder executives getting paid tens of millions of dollars at the expense of other employees? What is the justification for those top-level salaries to exist even when the company is doing badly and regular employees don't see a dime in raises or bonuses that year? I definitely agree that its a shitty situation. However, as far as I understand it the justification is that executive salaries are public which led to a salary arms-race where companies are forced to throw more and more ridiculous sums of money at executives.

CPLX 11y ago
That's the convenient dodge. The source of the problem whereby the trustees of publically owned companies both determine and benefit from high salaries is plainly obvious as a principal-agent problem.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  There's a reason why in the US, the federal Constitution contains explicit clauses to stop things like Congress voting themselves an unaccountable salary increase (it can't take effect for any individual member until after their next election) or creating/giving raises to other government positions they'll switch into (after creating or raising the pay of a position, they become ineligible to hold it until after their term in Congress expires -- which led to some interesting debates over whether it's legal to reduce a previously-raised salary to its original level in order to appoint a current member of Congress to it).

hkmurakami 11y ago

>Bottom line is that the type of wealth PG enables founders to create, and the subsequent inequality, is not the type society has a problem with. Seems like people are increasingly displeased at founders' preferential tax treatment of their shares though.

PaulHoule 11y ago

PG is in a bubble and has a distorted view, but unlike a lot of rich people, he's a real producer. Y Combinator has made the world a better place in terms of new businesses, wealth created, people trained, etc. Also PG and Sam Altman are very responsive to critics, they understand that they live in a bubble and that other people have a valid point of view. Compare that to the essays written by the people at Andressen Horowitz which vary from "let them eat cake" to the kind of rich people complaining that people criticizing them are ruining the economy for the rest of us as Paul Krugman has recently pointed out.

hobs 11y ago
Yeah, I submitted this article not because I think pg needs to have vitriol heaped upon him as much as the article really missed the meat of the issue and this was a good response.
- PaulHoule 11y ago
  I agree with you. He's the right person to engage in a dialog.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

How can he miss this: http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/opinion/ctl-child-poverty/#0 http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/opinion/ctl-child... ? Maybe he sees the poor, but labels them as lazy and not driven. It makes it easier to explain how some people worry about how their car doors open, while others worry about their next meal.