I don't really get what all this rebuttal targets. The original essay is poorly thought and full fallacies. Despite that none points them out. So, let see some

I don't really get what all this rebuttal targets. The original essay is poorly thought and full fallacies. Despite that none points them out. So, let see some of them. Ok, we shouldn't look at indicators of inequalities (the Gini Index for example), but we should look at inequality effects. Well, there's a lot of literature looking at it and finding that the Gini index is an acceptable proxy for the other measures (acceptable is kind of fuzzy here, bear with me). We also know that a Gini index of 1 doesn't mean perfect equality. This because it depends on the definition of equality and on what you measure. Also, we know that a little bit of inequality is not only acceptable but required to foster social mobility (and it is probably part of PG's argument). How much is the problem! But saying we shouldn't look at inequality index but at the underlying issues and the individual cases is as much a misguided suggestion as suggesting a startup to stop looking at DAU/MAU. But even if we discount this critique as futile. Do we really think that reducing a little bit the inequality will stop startups? If we setup the system in a way that Page make just 10 billion dollars instead of 15 billion out of Google (I'm making numbers up) he would have decided for a clerk work instead? Is he seriously saying that? And then, wasn't him (to be honest, could have been Sam Altman) that said that you shouldn't start a company to become reach but because you think you are the only one able to solve this issue? I know it sounds like a straw man argument. It is a sort of. But I believe in the law of diminishing return. I believe that I started a startup because I was determined to solve a hard problem, not for the upside (although it was important, but I was smart enough to know that the probability of making big money were really small and other investment had better returns). Then there's the point of variation in productivity that is so fuzzy my head exploded. What does he mean by that? Which his the definition of productivity he is using? Seriously, that's a problem. Because if he defines productivity by the ratio value individually produced/hours, I wonder how he estimates the value produced in the last week by Larry Page. By Google's value? And how he approportionate the value produced between Page and the thousands of people working for Google. Even for a simple example, how do you compare a productivity of a woodworker making chairs and a steelworker making swords? You could count the unit produced per day, but they are different products. You could assess the market values of their output, but I'm pretty sure the value of their output changes between peace time and war time without their productivity actually changing. Finally, it comes the last issue. He acknowledges that there's a small number of startup founders coming from poor backgrounds. I don't have data about that, so I believe him. Yet, I don't think determination is something lacking from poor people; it is the opposite! So, which is the problem here? Well, my little anecdotal experience tells me that when your parents could help you, you could go for the long shot, but if you need to eat, it is better to find something that give you the food quickly. It doesn't go against his argument, actually, kind of make it. But I wonder why it didn't make it explicit.