5 ms·

How could a startup begin to address wealth inequality?

by deegles 8y ago

benlorenzetti 8y ago
Competitor to the Federal Reserve :)
hodder 8y ago
Education
- analog31 8y ago
  Indeed, I believe that the three keys to success are wealth, education, and work, in that order. If you don't have wealth, then education is next. Perhaps education is like a kind of wealth. Rich people are likely to tell you that work is the most important, because they tend to have a heroic self image.
trevyn 8y ago
Take a wealthy person, ask them what they would do if they had zero money and connections, and teach that as a skill.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Step 1: Gain money and connections, one way or another.
- xkcd-sucks 8y ago
  Take a wealthy person, ask them what they're addicted to, and milk them for all they're worth
- rlglwx 8y ago
  No. Ask a person why they are "successful" and they will give you the answer they tell themselves. "I worked harder than others, I am smarter, I went to a good school, etc. etc." While they think that's true, it's mostly hogwash and most people can't tell you why they are or aren't successful. The problem is that most of what it comes down to is luck. Luck in the sense of time and place. People born into a wealthy family or even with two loving parents are lucky and way more likely to be wealthy than those that were born without. Warren Buffett came of age in the greatest period of prosperity in American history. Bill Gates came of age right at the time that PCs became possible. Bezos was first to market on a new and unproven platform. Zuckerberg got lucky because he was able to get started when broadband penetration in developing countries was finally starting to get some traction. No man is an island and teaching success as a skill is just silly in my opinion.
  - falcor84 8y ago
    That's very simplistic. Of course they were lucky, but the thing that differentiated these people your mentioned from everyone else with their original privilege was their ability to make the best of the opportunities awarded to them. “Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity"
  - jasonbarrah 8y ago
    The whole point of his question was that you take those advantages away from those men and see what they would do. The key is their creativity and ability to find ways to make money. Bill Gates was actually famously asked a version of this question. (What would you do if you were poor with no education and lived in a third world country.) He responded "Buy Chickens".
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      > The whole point of his question was that you take those advantages away from those men and see what they would do. The key is their creativity and ability to find ways to make money. And the answer is that most wealthy people, when reset to zero, would never be able to regain their wealth. The only way they may have a shot is by exploiting things from their formally wealthy life (e.g. contacts, connections, niche industry knowledge, or an ivy league degree).
    - tabtab 8y ago
      The one thing in common about the mega-rich is that they are obsessed with money and/or success. Warren's family members often complained he didn't spend enough time with the family because he was in his den sifting accounting and finance material. Warren is in love with numbers. The thing is the obsession trait doesn't necessarily scale. If you cloned a billion Gates', that would NOT give us a billion Microsofts. It's not a zero sum game, but pretty close to one. There's only so much room in any given niche. Another thing, I've been using and following Microsoft for about 3 decades. They didn't do anything special or innovative in my opinion, at least not relative to their size. MS just did smart marketing, acquisitions, pricing, and packaging. MS mostly leveraged monopoly in one category to gain another category: not raw merit. If MS never existed, the world would be the same or even better off: more OS and office-software choice. I have a bit more respect for Steve Jobs: he spotted useful product configurations before any one else (with means). MS just copied/purchased trends after it was obvious they were catching on.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  Not sure how a start up can commodify business connections, family ties, inheritance or being born with money, a support network and in a good school district.
- Zaskoda 8y ago
  Most wealthy people did not start off with zero money and connections. Most wealthy people are born into privilege. They can afford to fail and try again. They have family and friends that can help them access resources and connections that the rest of us don't even know exist much less know how to get ahold of. Despite the notion of the "American Dream", in our country, if you are born poor you will most likely stay poor.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Privilege as defined by what? Having good teachers? Having parents not drug addicted or in prison?
justicezyx 8y ago
Why down vote? Isn't the market growth unequally benefit people? Isn't this a fundamental question that everyone should spend some time on?
rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
This question comes across as a little callous, but I think the intent is genuine and is worthy of inspection. In general, the best things that can be done to address inequality from a for-profit perspective is to reduce consumer costs. Now the obvious problem is that if you cut costs by paying your own people less - or by opting to get your business’s goods and services from suppliers that also pay poorly - then you have only moved inequality from one place to another. But if you invent a way to create goods or offer services at a lower cost without having to cut wages - perhaps by being more efficient with energy or input materials - then you can pass some savings along to the consumer while the rest go to the shareholders as profit. Competitors may go out of business, but new corporations and jobs will take their place. For example, almost everybody uses electricity for light; few use candles, and even then it is more of a luxury than a necessity (like a romantic bedroom scene). Technological innovation, in my opinion, is the only way that a for-profit corporation can make money and reduce inequality.
la6470 8y ago
There are many startups that are addressing this. Today it is easier than ever to invest in stock market with as low as $100 and no commission. But at the end of the day along with luck one also needs enterprise and discipline to grow wealth over a very long period of time. There are just no shortcuts.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Fomite 8y ago
Deliberate and structured hiring and mentoring of under-represented groups.
- sdinsn 8y ago
  Abandoning meritocracy won't be good for anyone.
  - Fomite 8y ago
    The assumption that what currently exists is a meritocracy is part of the problem.
    - apersona 8y ago
      And moving further away from it is the solution?
      - Fomite 8y ago
        It's not moving further away. It's increasing your catchment area. It's reaching down into the pool, to people who didn't go to the right school, or have the right connections, who still never the less show promise and aptitude and say "You. Come with me. We're going to do cool things."
devcpp 8y ago
Technically, by producing a product with value for the wealthy, and redistributing its money to poorer employees. In short, capitalism. And you'd be using it as intended.
soared 8y ago
Financial education in schools, or some sort of scheme where the benefits of long-term investing are made viable for poor people. A start up could do some mental trickery / game theory that benefits poor people. Say a start up takes 10% of every pay check, but buys all your groceries. They invest the difference into your 401k. The person gets groceries and a retirement fund, without having to know about investing. Obviously this doesn't really make sense, but the idea is that poor people don't have financial knowledge, don't know where/how to save money, don't have the time to cut costs, etc.
conanbatt 8y ago
Offer extremely expensive deluxe services, like space travel.
imbokodo 8y ago
Startups solicit seed and angel money at their beginning, meaning from the start someone outside their company, who does not work at the company, has an interest in expropriating surplus labor time (perhaps in the future) from those doing the work. You this have an enterprise from the beginning set up like this. The startup is the beginning of the organization which perpetuates "inequality", it is its main purpose to do so. Thus it will not have a role in its destruction, other than in a dialectical sense.
fake-name 8y ago
Take money from venture capitalists, give it to actual people who need help?

How could a startup begin to address wealth inequality?

benlorenzetti 8y ago

Competitor to the Federal Reserve :)

hodder 8y ago

Education

analog31 8y ago
Indeed, I believe that the three keys to success are wealth, education, and work, in that order. If you don't have wealth, then education is next. Perhaps education is like a kind of wealth. Rich people are likely to tell you that work is the most important, because they tend to have a heroic self image.

trevyn 8y ago

Take a wealthy person, ask them what they would do if they had zero money and connections, and teach that as a skill.

stephengillie 8y ago
Step 1: Gain money and connections, one way or another.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
Take a wealthy person, ask them what they're addicted to, and milk them for all they're worth
rlglwx 8y ago
No. Ask a person why they are "successful" and they will give you the answer they tell themselves. "I worked harder than others, I am smarter, I went to a good school, etc. etc." While they think that's true, it's mostly hogwash and most people can't tell you why they are or aren't successful. The problem is that most of what it comes down to is luck. Luck in the sense of time and place. People born into a wealthy family or even with two loving parents are lucky and way more likely to be wealthy than those that were born without. Warren Buffett came of age in the greatest period of prosperity in American history. Bill Gates came of age right at the time that PCs became possible. Bezos was first to market on a new and unproven platform. Zuckerberg got lucky because he was able to get started when broadband penetration in developing countries was finally starting to get some traction. No man is an island and teaching success as a skill is just silly in my opinion.
- falcor84 8y ago
  That's very simplistic. Of course they were lucky, but the thing that differentiated these people your mentioned from everyone else with their original privilege was their ability to make the best of the opportunities awarded to them. “Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity"
- jasonbarrah 8y ago
  The whole point of his question was that you take those advantages away from those men and see what they would do. The key is their creativity and ability to find ways to make money. Bill Gates was actually famously asked a version of this question. (What would you do if you were poor with no education and lived in a third world country.) He responded "Buy Chickens".
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    > The whole point of his question was that you take those advantages away from those men and see what they would do. The key is their creativity and ability to find ways to make money. And the answer is that most wealthy people, when reset to zero, would never be able to regain their wealth. The only way they may have a shot is by exploiting things from their formally wealthy life (e.g. contacts, connections, niche industry knowledge, or an ivy league degree).
  - tabtab 8y ago
    The one thing in common about the mega-rich is that they are obsessed with money and/or success. Warren's family members often complained he didn't spend enough time with the family because he was in his den sifting accounting and finance material. Warren is in love with numbers. The thing is the obsession trait doesn't necessarily scale. If you cloned a billion Gates', that would NOT give us a billion Microsofts. It's not a zero sum game, but pretty close to one. There's only so much room in any given niche. Another thing, I've been using and following Microsoft for about 3 decades. They didn't do anything special or innovative in my opinion, at least not relative to their size. MS just did smart marketing, acquisitions, pricing, and packaging. MS mostly leveraged monopoly in one category to gain another category: not raw merit. If MS never existed, the world would be the same or even better off: more OS and office-software choice. I have a bit more respect for Steve Jobs: he spotted useful product configurations before any one else (with means). MS just copied/purchased trends after it was obvious they were catching on.
fucking_tragedy 8y ago
Not sure how a start up can commodify business connections, family ties, inheritance or being born with money, a support network and in a good school district.
Zaskoda 8y ago
Most wealthy people did not start off with zero money and connections. Most wealthy people are born into privilege. They can afford to fail and try again. They have family and friends that can help them access resources and connections that the rest of us don't even know exist much less know how to get ahold of. Despite the notion of the "American Dream", in our country, if you are born poor you will most likely stay poor.
- refurb 8y ago
  Privilege as defined by what? Having good teachers? Having parents not drug addicted or in prison?

justicezyx 8y ago

Why down vote? Isn't the market growth unequally benefit people? Isn't this a fundamental question that everyone should spend some time on?

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago

This question comes across as a little callous, but I think the intent is genuine and is worthy of inspection. In general, the best things that can be done to address inequality from a for-profit perspective is to reduce consumer costs. Now the obvious problem is that if you cut costs by paying your own people less - or by opting to get your business’s goods and services from suppliers that also pay poorly - then you have only moved inequality from one place to another. But if you invent a way to create goods or offer services at a lower cost without having to cut wages - perhaps by being more efficient with energy or input materials - then you can pass some savings along to the consumer while the rest go to the shareholders as profit. Competitors may go out of business, but new corporations and jobs will take their place. For example, almost everybody uses electricity for light; few use candles, and even then it is more of a luxury than a necessity (like a romantic bedroom scene). Technological innovation, in my opinion, is the only way that a for-profit corporation can make money and reduce inequality.

la6470 8y ago

There are many startups that are addressing this. Today it is easier than ever to invest in stock market with as low as $100 and no commission. But at the end of the day along with luck one also needs enterprise and discipline to grow wealth over a very long period of time. There are just no shortcuts.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Fomite 8y ago

Deliberate and structured hiring and mentoring of under-represented groups.

sdinsn 8y ago
Abandoning meritocracy won't be good for anyone.
- Fomite 8y ago
  The assumption that what currently exists is a meritocracy is part of the problem.
  - apersona 8y ago
    And moving further away from it is the solution?
    - Fomite 8y ago
      It's not moving further away. It's increasing your catchment area. It's reaching down into the pool, to people who didn't go to the right school, or have the right connections, who still never the less show promise and aptitude and say "You. Come with me. We're going to do cool things."

devcpp 8y ago

Technically, by producing a product with value for the wealthy, and redistributing its money to poorer employees. In short, capitalism. And you'd be using it as intended.

soared 8y ago

Financial education in schools, or some sort of scheme where the benefits of long-term investing are made viable for poor people. A start up could do some mental trickery / game theory that benefits poor people. Say a start up takes 10% of every pay check, but buys all your groceries. They invest the difference into your 401k. The person gets groceries and a retirement fund, without having to know about investing. Obviously this doesn't really make sense, but the idea is that poor people don't have financial knowledge, don't know where/how to save money, don't have the time to cut costs, etc.

conanbatt 8y ago

Offer extremely expensive deluxe services, like space travel.

imbokodo 8y ago

Startups solicit seed and angel money at their beginning, meaning from the start someone outside their company, who does not work at the company, has an interest in expropriating surplus labor time (perhaps in the future) from those doing the work. You this have an enterprise from the beginning set up like this. The startup is the beginning of the organization which perpetuates "inequality", it is its main purpose to do so. Thus it will not have a role in its destruction, other than in a dialectical sense.

fake-name 8y ago

Take money from venture capitalists, give it to actual people who need help?