4 ms·
I don't buy the assertion that startups increase economic inequality. I mean, I suppose some of them might, but a few people getting rich by producing something
by hcayless 11y ago
I don't buy the assertion that startups increase economic inequality. I mean, I suppose some of them might, but a few people getting rich by producing something of value doesn't equate to an increase in general poverty. A startup might even improve economic inequality. Depends what it does. The whole argument seems to boil down to a fear that improving the general welfare might involve slamming the brakes on innovation, but I don't see anyone making the argument that we should do that. If anything, poverty, and its associated problems, is itself a huge brake on innovation. How can you innovate if you're worried about feeding your family tomorrow? Wouldn't people be more likely to take risks like startups if they were less worried about the downsides, like losing their health insurance? Wouldn't there be more innovation if people didn't have to worry about starving because of going without a steady income for a couple of years?
- romaster 11y agoI'm a little bit surprised that the closing remark of his blog post was "even if you remove all the bad causes, the good causes far outweigh the bad and will cause inequality to further increase." I guess if one so brazenly believes that to be true, then it must naturally follow that PG would support further inequality. So it is not that he is against economic inequality per se. He is simply sure (perhaps falsely) of its causes, and believes that if those causes are the majority drivers, then the benefits outweigh the cost. If he were to be proven wrong about the breakdown of these causes... his opinion might shift.