4 ms·
What are you saying PG is confusing then? He is talking about economic inequality caused by technology. Are you saying that technology can't cause extreme eco
by chubot 11y ago
What are you saying PG is confusing then? He is talking about economic inequality caused by technology.
Are you saying that technology can't cause extreme economic inequality? Comparing a Wal-mart worker vs. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Paul Graham sounds like extreme economic inequality by your definition.
I think you are missing exactly the point of the post, while accusing him of being confused.
- ThomPete 11y agoNo I am not missing exactly what he is saying. He is claiming that people are critiquing startups for creating unfair economic inequality, they are not. Most people have nothing against the inequality created by most startups. However they do have something against someone like Uber or Wallmart or the Koch brothers.
- chubot 11y agoYou changed your criticism. First post: "PG insist on confusing extreme economic inequality with normal economic inequality" Last post: "Most people have nothing against the inequality created by most startups" His point was that startups can produce extreme income inequality (without the system being rigged). The whole point of his essay was to not lump all the causes of income inequality together.
- ThomPete 11y agoI haven't changed anything I am just adding more context to what I mean. PG believes that people are against the inequality startups create. They are not because most startups don't become family dynasties. Thats the point. Only PG is talking about startups. Thats not what people talk about when they critique economic inequality and that's what he doesn't seem to understand.