7 ms·

> It used to piss me off a little bit, given how hard I have had to work to get to this stage There are only so many hours in the week, only so many years in a

> It used to piss me off a little bit, given how hard I have had to work to get to this stage There are only so many hours in the week, only so many years in a career, and thus there's a limit to how much more one person can work than another. And yet there are people making 2x, 10x, 100x, 1000x, …, 1 billion times what others are. Compensation is largely unrelated to the amount of sweat, time, and effort we put in. Rather, it's a result of the depth of the value we provide and the number of people we provide that value to. Outcome > input. I believe that understanding this makes us less jealous of people who seem "undeserving," and also helps us make better decisions in our own careers. Another way to reduce envy is to realize that, ultimately, it's luck all the way down. There are plenty of talented, hard-working people who will never see even moderate success, simply because they were born in the wrong country, in the wrong decade, to the wrong parents, etc. It seems that cursing the people above us is a natural tendency for humans, but we'd do well to spend more energy thinking of those behind us, as well as appreciating our own circumstances.

shawn 8y ago
Rather, it's a result of the depth of the value we provide and the number of people we provide that value to. Outcome > input Not really. It’s mostly family connections.
- krkek29nx 8y ago
  Yeah citation needed Unless all the scholarly work on “how is value determined” attempting to define this is wrong. Did we just solve it on a web forum by accident? Short answer is there isn’t an answer that’s reliable except “networking and feelings” making it seem arbitrary Economics and Wall Street are not free markets for ideas. They’re on rails financial walled gardens. One must recite the theories and have the right keys (money) to gain entry Nothing about the system is objective
- btilly 8y ago
  According to https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires-made-it-themselves.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires-m..., about 2/3 of billionaires have self-made fortunes. So clearly family connections help. But that doesn't appear to be most of the picture.
  - bsder 8y ago
    Is Bill Gates self-made? Or was it the fact that his father could cut a $25,000 check on a whim? Having lots of ready liquid cash gets you the ability to make deals that normal people do not have access to. You don't even have to be that rich. Take a look at Craigslist at the end of the month before rent is due.
    - petra 8y ago
      >> Is Bill Gates self-made? Or was it the fact that his father could cut a $25,000 check on a whim? And his mother had good connections with the IBM board, leading IBM to give the operating system business to Bill .
      - aeternus 8y ago
        Everyone has certain advantages, one of the keys to creating value is to leverage those. The public & press love rags to riches stories, so even someone without any of the traditional 'advantages' can leverage that for publicity, fundraising, etc. And many independently wealthy business-people have.
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        And yet IBM went to Digital Research first, and DR couldn't close the deal. Of course, Gates was already successful when IBM came by, and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have been greatly successful with or without IBM.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - wolco 8y ago
      Lots of people can get 25,000 and anyone can get that amount if there was a billion dollars payoff at the end. Millions of people started a business with at least 25,000 and there are only a few billionares, most lost it all but some made a living and some got richs.
- Veelox 8y ago
  You do realize that 80% of people worth >$1 million had parents that were not millionaires right?
badkungfu 8y ago
> Another way to reduce envy is to realize that, ultimately, it's luck all the way down. There are plenty of talented, hard-working people who will never see even moderate success Realizing that it's luck all the way down only reinforces my opinion that the wealthy pay a pittance in taxes relative to the value they get from our society. Those talented, hard-working people who will never see success deserve affordable healthcare, a functioning safety net that allows them to overcome difficulty and take chances, equal education opportunities for their kids, and a hope for a retirement that doesn't require giving up everything or overburdening their families. Unhappiness that we (in the US at least) are not on that path is more than envy.
- kchronic8 8y ago
  > Those talented, hard-working people I can assure you that most people in the world have neither of those attributes.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    Hey, check out Mr. Talent Measurer over here.
  - csallen 8y ago
    Considering these attributes are relative by definition, it's a fact that half of the population is harder working than average, and half of the population is more talented than average. But when you add in the context that there are numerous ways to be hard working or talented (e.g. someone may suck at reading, but be an extremely disciplined bodybuilder), it becomes pretty much a guarantee that the majority of people are talented or hard-working at something.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  This is always my argument for why wealthy people should pay quite a bit of taxes. No matter what system we have, SOME people are going to be advantaged by it. We can't always know with certainty beforehand who are the people who are going to be advantaged, but we have a pretty good idea that the people who make a shit ton of money were advantaged in some way. So lets have them pay more than what would seem to be their share, since things were clearly set up with advantages for them.
SJWDisagree111 8y ago
The worlds oldest profession. Prostitution. Not hard to notice since about 90% of "influencers" are young (mostly white) women.
jjoonathan 8y ago
> Rather, it's a result of the depth of the value we provide The market's notion of value is weighted by wealth and therefore so far from the everyday or philosophical notions of value that it hardly deserves the term. Example: finding a reason to deny someone's health insurance claim is "valuable", feeding a starving poor person is not.
- ttoinou 8y ago
  the everyday or philosophical notions of value that it hardly deserves the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value > instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of his desired ends https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value > The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something Seems to fit
  - IggleSniggle 8y ago
    I’m not sure I understand your comment. Do you mean to say that you think the market’s notion of value DOES align with the importance acting individuals place on a good / importance worth or usefulness of something? How could this possibly be true when the majority of wealth is held by a minority of individuals? It’s contradictory. A majority of people are incapable of expressing their values through wealth dispersion. If you assume that wealth dispersion is an expression of value, then by definition wealthy individuals are disproportionately able to express value.
    - ttoinou 8y ago
      How could this possibly be true when the majority of wealth is held by a minority of individuals? You went from value to wealth too fast. And this catchy sentence is only true because some statistical institution said so. Read De Soto about dead capital : http://www.thepowerofthepoor.com/concepts/c6.php http://www.thepowerofthepoor.com/concepts/c6.php > The developed world has devised a formal property system of titles, title registries, and inclusive property law that includes real estate used for homes or businesses. We in the West take that system for granted, probably because it is invisible to us. De Soto shows that this is in a large part why some nations are rich while others remain in poverty. then by definition wealthy individuals are disproportionately able to express value How do you think "everyone able to fairly able to express it's own value" would work ?
bryanrasmussen 8y ago
I suppose it being luck all the way down would reduce envy in some people, but I expect it will make it much worse for others.
s2g 8y ago
> I believe that understanding this makes us less jealous of people who seem "undeserving," and also helps us make better decisions in our own careers. oh no, now I'm just jealous they were able to convince people of the value of their vapid bullshit.
skookumchuck 8y ago
If it's all luck, then why aren't we equally "lucky" if we just sit around watching TV?
- csallen 8y ago
  First, there's nothing in the definition of luck that says it gets spread around equally. That would be uniformity, but luck is about randomness, which is (by definition) not uniform. Second, when you say "sit around watching TV," I presume you're saying that hard work leads to success, and implying that hard work is not luck. I agree with the first part and disagree with the second. What makes someone a hard worker? What makes someone intelligent? Attractive? Likable? Talented? If you keep asking why, and you keep retracing a person's history back to the beginning, then the answer invariable boils down to some lucky combination of genes and environment/experience. Even your ability to improve upon the hand you were dealt in life depends entirely on… the hand you were dealt in life.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    All you're doing is making excuses for people sitting around watching TV being just "unlucky". Your life is by and large the sum of your choices.
    - csallen 8y ago
      If you read my post, you'll see that I'm not denying the existence of those choices, but I'm pointing out that those choices are the inevitable result of genetic and environmental factors that nobody ever decided on.

shawn 8y ago

Rather, it's a result of the depth of the value we provide and the number of people we provide that value to. Outcome > input Not really. It’s mostly family connections.

krkek29nx 8y ago
Yeah citation needed Unless all the scholarly work on “how is value determined” attempting to define this is wrong. Did we just solve it on a web forum by accident? Short answer is there isn’t an answer that’s reliable except “networking and feelings” making it seem arbitrary Economics and Wall Street are not free markets for ideas. They’re on rails financial walled gardens. One must recite the theories and have the right keys (money) to gain entry Nothing about the system is objective
btilly 8y ago
According to https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires-made-it-themselves.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/03/two-thirds-of-billionaires-m..., about 2/3 of billionaires have self-made fortunes. So clearly family connections help. But that doesn't appear to be most of the picture.
- bsder 8y ago
  Is Bill Gates self-made? Or was it the fact that his father could cut a $25,000 check on a whim? Having lots of ready liquid cash gets you the ability to make deals that normal people do not have access to. You don't even have to be that rich. Take a look at Craigslist at the end of the month before rent is due.
  - petra 8y ago
    >> Is Bill Gates self-made? Or was it the fact that his father could cut a $25,000 check on a whim? And his mother had good connections with the IBM board, leading IBM to give the operating system business to Bill .
    - aeternus 8y ago
      Everyone has certain advantages, one of the keys to creating value is to leverage those. The public & press love rags to riches stories, so even someone without any of the traditional 'advantages' can leverage that for publicity, fundraising, etc. And many independently wealthy business-people have.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      And yet IBM went to Digital Research first, and DR couldn't close the deal. Of course, Gates was already successful when IBM came by, and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have been greatly successful with or without IBM.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - wolco 8y ago
    Lots of people can get 25,000 and anyone can get that amount if there was a billion dollars payoff at the end. Millions of people started a business with at least 25,000 and there are only a few billionares, most lost it all but some made a living and some got richs.
Veelox 8y ago
You do realize that 80% of people worth >$1 million had parents that were not millionaires right?

badkungfu 8y ago

> Another way to reduce envy is to realize that, ultimately, it's luck all the way down. There are plenty of talented, hard-working people who will never see even moderate success Realizing that it's luck all the way down only reinforces my opinion that the wealthy pay a pittance in taxes relative to the value they get from our society. Those talented, hard-working people who will never see success deserve affordable healthcare, a functioning safety net that allows them to overcome difficulty and take chances, equal education opportunities for their kids, and a hope for a retirement that doesn't require giving up everything or overburdening their families. Unhappiness that we (in the US at least) are not on that path is more than envy.

kchronic8 8y ago
> Those talented, hard-working people I can assure you that most people in the world have neither of those attributes.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Hey, check out Mr. Talent Measurer over here.
- csallen 8y ago
  Considering these attributes are relative by definition, it's a fact that half of the population is harder working than average, and half of the population is more talented than average. But when you add in the context that there are numerous ways to be hard working or talented (e.g. someone may suck at reading, but be an extremely disciplined bodybuilder), it becomes pretty much a guarantee that the majority of people are talented or hard-working at something.
cortesoft 8y ago
This is always my argument for why wealthy people should pay quite a bit of taxes. No matter what system we have, SOME people are going to be advantaged by it. We can't always know with certainty beforehand who are the people who are going to be advantaged, but we have a pretty good idea that the people who make a shit ton of money were advantaged in some way. So lets have them pay more than what would seem to be their share, since things were clearly set up with advantages for them.

SJWDisagree111 8y ago

The worlds oldest profession. Prostitution. Not hard to notice since about 90% of "influencers" are young (mostly white) women.

jjoonathan 8y ago

> Rather, it's a result of the depth of the value we provide The market's notion of value is weighted by wealth and therefore so far from the everyday or philosophical notions of value that it hardly deserves the term. Example: finding a reason to deny someone's health insurance claim is "valuable", feeding a starving poor person is not.

ttoinou 8y ago
the everyday or philosophical notions of value that it hardly deserves the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value > instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of his desired ends https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value > The regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something Seems to fit
- IggleSniggle 8y ago
  I’m not sure I understand your comment. Do you mean to say that you think the market’s notion of value DOES align with the importance acting individuals place on a good / importance worth or usefulness of something? How could this possibly be true when the majority of wealth is held by a minority of individuals? It’s contradictory. A majority of people are incapable of expressing their values through wealth dispersion. If you assume that wealth dispersion is an expression of value, then by definition wealthy individuals are disproportionately able to express value.
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    How could this possibly be true when the majority of wealth is held by a minority of individuals? You went from value to wealth too fast. And this catchy sentence is only true because some statistical institution said so. Read De Soto about dead capital : http://www.thepowerofthepoor.com/concepts/c6.php http://www.thepowerofthepoor.com/concepts/c6.php > The developed world has devised a formal property system of titles, title registries, and inclusive property law that includes real estate used for homes or businesses. We in the West take that system for granted, probably because it is invisible to us. De Soto shows that this is in a large part why some nations are rich while others remain in poverty. then by definition wealthy individuals are disproportionately able to express value How do you think "everyone able to fairly able to express it's own value" would work ?

bryanrasmussen 8y ago

I suppose it being luck all the way down would reduce envy in some people, but I expect it will make it much worse for others.

s2g 8y ago

> I believe that understanding this makes us less jealous of people who seem "undeserving," and also helps us make better decisions in our own careers. oh no, now I'm just jealous they were able to convince people of the value of their vapid bullshit.

skookumchuck 8y ago

If it's all luck, then why aren't we equally "lucky" if we just sit around watching TV?

csallen 8y ago
First, there's nothing in the definition of luck that says it gets spread around equally. That would be uniformity, but luck is about randomness, which is (by definition) not uniform. Second, when you say "sit around watching TV," I presume you're saying that hard work leads to success, and implying that hard work is not luck. I agree with the first part and disagree with the second. What makes someone a hard worker? What makes someone intelligent? Attractive? Likable? Talented? If you keep asking why, and you keep retracing a person's history back to the beginning, then the answer invariable boils down to some lucky combination of genes and environment/experience. Even your ability to improve upon the hand you were dealt in life depends entirely on… the hand you were dealt in life.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  All you're doing is making excuses for people sitting around watching TV being just "unlucky". Your life is by and large the sum of your choices.
  - csallen 8y ago
    If you read my post, you'll see that I'm not denying the existence of those choices, but I'm pointing out that those choices are the inevitable result of genetic and environmental factors that nobody ever decided on.