4 ms·

Startups aren't good because they create income inequality. Income inequality being possible is good because it provides the incentives for people to take risks

by carc 11y ago

Startups aren't good because they create income inequality. Income inequality being possible is good because it provides the incentives for people to take risks and create startups. That isn't to say the current level of income inequality we see today is good - it isn't. But to get rid of income inequality completely would drastically reduce the number of startups because - what would be the point? Would you really rather have everyone make the same amount of income regardless of what they do?

eridius 11y ago
Startups are not good because they create income inequality. That's a ridiculous claim. That would only be true if income inequality was intrinsically good, and I hope nobody is trying to argue for that. Startups are good because they create value (although that particular value is highly subjective depending on what the startup is actually doing; a startup that finds a cure for cancer is creating objective value, but a startup that brings the sharing economy to lawn maintenance is much more subjective, as any value it creates for the sharing economy comes at the cost of value destroyed in traditional lawn care services). Startups also create income inequality. This is not an intrinsically good thing. It is just accepted as the normal way to reward people for taking a risk on a startup. Given that, the only reason to argue against reducing income inequality generated by startups is if this reduction actually decreases the overall objective value created by startups (if fewer startups are created, but more of them create either more value or value that is more objectively valuable, is that a bad thing?) Don't forget as well that there are plenty of ways to create value, and to create companies, that don't involve startups. Most businesses in this country aren't startups. > Would you really rather have everyone make the same amount of income regardless of what they do? Literally nobody is arguing for that. That's a humongous straw man, it's the same straw man pg used in his original article, and it's complete nonsense. "Reduce income inequality" does not mean eliminate all income inequality.
- carc 11y ago
  > Literally nobody is arguing for that. That's a humongous straw man, it's the same straw man pg used in his original article, and it's complete nonsense. "Reduce income inequality" does not mean eliminate all income inequality. So you seem to agree that income inequality can be a good thing. If you didn't, you'd want everyone to have the same income. Maybe I misunderstood PG's essay, but the main takeaway I got was that income inequality CAN be a good thing for a society, and that the income inequality caused by successful startups are not an important enough problem (if it is even a problem) to society for us to try to focus on it.
  - eridius 11y ago
    I'm not saying income inequality can be a good thing. Not everything in this world has to be either bad or good. I think that income inequality in the abstract is not intrinsically bad. I don't know whether it's good. Maybe it is good to have some income inequality, at least in today's society (in a future post-scarcity society things might be different). Maybe it's not. I don't really know, and I don't care to debate that because it doesn't matter in the slightest since nobody is actually advocating for zero income inequality. But it should be pretty obvious that extreme income inequality is bad for everyone (or at least, for everyone who doesn't actually possess the extreme wealth that is causing the problem, although even there they might benefit more from having a healthy society than they do from possessing such extreme wealth). How exactly you define "extreme" is debatable, but it's simply absurd to take the position that any argument in favor of reducing income inequality is equivalent to an argument in favor of having zero income inequality across the board.
ryandrake 11y ago
False dichotomy. Nobody (or very few people) is arguing that everyone make the same amount of income regardless of what they do. The arguments are against the jackpot-like nature of income (and wealth) distribution which leads to extreme inequality.

by carc 11y ago

eridius 11y ago

Startups are not good because they create income inequality. That's a ridiculous claim. That would only be true if income inequality was intrinsically good, and I hope nobody is trying to argue for that. Startups are good because they create value (although that particular value is highly subjective depending on what the startup is actually doing; a startup that finds a cure for cancer is creating objective value, but a startup that brings the sharing economy to lawn maintenance is much more subjective, as any value it creates for the sharing economy comes at the cost of value destroyed in traditional lawn care services). Startups also create income inequality. This is not an intrinsically good thing. It is just accepted as the normal way to reward people for taking a risk on a startup. Given that, the only reason to argue against reducing income inequality generated by startups is if this reduction actually decreases the overall objective value created by startups (if fewer startups are created, but more of them create either more value or value that is more objectively valuable, is that a bad thing?) Don't forget as well that there are plenty of ways to create value, and to create companies, that don't involve startups. Most businesses in this country aren't startups. > Would you really rather have everyone make the same amount of income regardless of what they do? Literally nobody is arguing for that. That's a humongous straw man, it's the same straw man pg used in his original article, and it's complete nonsense. "Reduce income inequality" does not mean eliminate all income inequality.

carc 11y ago
> Literally nobody is arguing for that. That's a humongous straw man, it's the same straw man pg used in his original article, and it's complete nonsense. "Reduce income inequality" does not mean eliminate all income inequality. So you seem to agree that income inequality can be a good thing. If you didn't, you'd want everyone to have the same income. Maybe I misunderstood PG's essay, but the main takeaway I got was that income inequality CAN be a good thing for a society, and that the income inequality caused by successful startups are not an important enough problem (if it is even a problem) to society for us to try to focus on it.
- eridius 11y ago
  I'm not saying income inequality can be a good thing. Not everything in this world has to be either bad or good. I think that income inequality in the abstract is not intrinsically bad. I don't know whether it's good. Maybe it is good to have some income inequality, at least in today's society (in a future post-scarcity society things might be different). Maybe it's not. I don't really know, and I don't care to debate that because it doesn't matter in the slightest since nobody is actually advocating for zero income inequality. But it should be pretty obvious that extreme income inequality is bad for everyone (or at least, for everyone who doesn't actually possess the extreme wealth that is causing the problem, although even there they might benefit more from having a healthy society than they do from possessing such extreme wealth). How exactly you define "extreme" is debatable, but it's simply absurd to take the position that any argument in favor of reducing income inequality is equivalent to an argument in favor of having zero income inequality across the board.

ryandrake 11y ago

False dichotomy. Nobody (or very few people) is arguing that everyone make the same amount of income regardless of what they do. The arguments are against the jackpot-like nature of income (and wealth) distribution which leads to extreme inequality.