4 ms·

Of course, building the 747 by yourself is not possible. But it is possible to put together a team that has enough diverse skills to build it - that's the whole

Of course, building the 747 by yourself is not possible. But it is possible to put together a team that has enough diverse skills to build it - that's the whole point of entrepreneurship. The point that everyone who talks about how inequality is bad is missing is that without the billionaire in your example, there would be NO jobs. Pure labor doesn't produce - there needs to be a business idea, vision, strategy, organization, sales - all those things that the businessman in charge provides. The reality of the situation is that workers can be replaced - that's why they get paid less. But the businessman creator can NOT be replaced - without him/her in charge, there would be nothing else. Soviet Union and other socialist countries tried taking the businessman in charge away - and we know exactly what happened after that. I know this system isn't "fair", but it's better than the alternatives.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Right and I agree with your main point. It's basically the point I'm trying to drive home. Communism isn't the solution, capitalism is better but has problems as well. We should all work to resolve those problems even if capitalism is currently the best possible solution. Extreme Wealth inequality is a problem of unfairness and we should strive to resolve the problem without giving up the benefits that come with capitalism. I disagree with the fact the billionaire can't be replaced. The billionaire isn't some special human being. I would argue if you replace the current CEO of apple with a random apple SW engineer, the company wouldn't change much. In fact I would argue that skilled work, the work of software engineers is by far much more irreplaceable. The person who coded the critical infrastructure for the apple operating system, he is by far harder to replace then the billionaire on top. Also note: Steve jobs died, Apple stock has gone up since his death.
- throwaway_5561 11y ago
  I think your Apple example is helping to disprove your point. > I would argue if you replace the current CEO of apple with a random apple SW engineer, the company wouldn't change much. That's exactly what happened in the 80's - they forced Steve Jobs out, and the company lost all their market share and was on the verge on dying, before he came back. > Steve jobs died, Apple stock has gone up since his death. By that time, Steve Jobs knew he was going to die and picked his successor very carefully - Tim Cook is definitely a great choice. Some would argue, however, that Apple is still thriving because of Steve's ideas, and as soon as they run out of them, Apple will start to decline. The jury is still out on that one, however.
wfo 11y ago
When a group of people get together to create something of value in a venture we call a 'business' who decides which person gets which proportion of the profits? The people who did the work? The person who provided much of the wealth as an investment and took risk? Why is 'risking money' worth so much more than hard work? Because people with money to risk have decided that it should be, and they make the rules. Currently whoever happens to be at the top of the business structure decides as a dictator who gets what, subject to some regulations libertarians would like to destroy like minimum wage which assure he does not steal everything his employees have created.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Right and I agree with your main point. It's basically the point I'm trying to drive home. Communism isn't the solution, capitalism is better but has problems as well. We should all work to resolve those problems even if capitalism is currently the best possible solution. Extreme Wealth inequality is a problem of unfairness and we should strive to resolve the problem without giving up the benefits that come with capitalism. I disagree with the fact the billionaire can't be replaced. The billionaire isn't some special human being. I would argue if you replace the current CEO of apple with a random apple SW engineer, the company wouldn't change much. In fact I would argue that skilled work, the work of software engineers is by far much more irreplaceable. The person who coded the critical infrastructure for the apple operating system, he is by far harder to replace then the billionaire on top. Also note: Steve jobs died, Apple stock has gone up since his death.

throwaway_5561 11y ago
I think your Apple example is helping to disprove your point. > I would argue if you replace the current CEO of apple with a random apple SW engineer, the company wouldn't change much. That's exactly what happened in the 80's - they forced Steve Jobs out, and the company lost all their market share and was on the verge on dying, before he came back. > Steve jobs died, Apple stock has gone up since his death. By that time, Steve Jobs knew he was going to die and picked his successor very carefully - Tim Cook is definitely a great choice. Some would argue, however, that Apple is still thriving because of Steve's ideas, and as soon as they run out of them, Apple will start to decline. The jury is still out on that one, however.

wfo 11y ago

When a group of people get together to create something of value in a venture we call a 'business' who decides which person gets which proportion of the profits? The people who did the work? The person who provided much of the wealth as an investment and took risk? Why is 'risking money' worth so much more than hard work? Because people with money to risk have decided that it should be, and they make the rules. Currently whoever happens to be at the top of the business structure decides as a dictator who gets what, subject to some regulations libertarians would like to destroy like minimum wage which assure he does not steal everything his employees have created.