4 ms·

"He has specialized to an extreme and is taking advantage of the rewards of that specialization and natural talent in a unique way." Gates is another one of th

"He has specialized to an extreme and is taking advantage of the rewards of that specialization and natural talent in a unique way." Gates is another one of those people where most forget that his grandfather was a multi-millionaire, his mother was a director at IBM, and he had access to one of the first computers in the world. I.e. he is not an example of a self-made person, so anything he says is not really applicable to anyone looking to "make it." P.S. The last paragraph is all I am saying - I have nothing against Gates.

foobiekr 8y ago
How basic is required to qualify as self-made in a meaningful sense? I’m not talking about “Should he have grounded up sand and made his own chips and boards?” stuff, I mean lots of people have similar circumstances to Gates and made nothing of themselves. As it happens the high school I went to, as a kid from a mostly lower middle class family with severe issues being able to pay attention in school in the eighties, had a lot of kids of rich families. These kids had everything - expensive cars at 16, huge houses, nice places to live, etc. I have followed them along. It’s been 25+ years and basically none of them did anything with their lives, though to be frank I think they could certainly have been much happier and have had more experiences. The other misfits and I have done ok. So Gates started from a better place and did far, far better than his peers. Does he not get credit for that?
- aabeshou 8y ago
  I would agree that wealth shouldn't negate his accomplishments. I think a lot of people who point out Gates' family wealth are reacting to the current political/ideological climate which would say "look, Bill Gates is self-made, so anyone can be!" neglecting the ridiculous enabling impact that enormous family wealth has, and shaming poor people for not being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    >are reacting to the current political/ideological climate Which climate are you referring to? The current climate in the US on the left is being dominated by the narrative that rich people are only successful because of their environment so they don't have the claim to their money that they think they do. "Every billionaire is a policy failure" https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-policy-guy-every-billionaire-is-a-policy-failure/ https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/alexandria-ocasio-cor... This view is not a reaction to balance anything out, it's a policy position that billionaires should not exist because they do not deserve that much money.
    - majormajor 8y ago
      I don't see talk of deserving things in your link, or of reasons for success. Someone could be both completely "deserving" of having received the income and "guilty" of "hoarding" it at the same time. "The acquisition of that much wealth has bad consequences. A moral society needs guardrails against it." "Moral society" isn't explored in that article, but "has bad consequences" is pretty far away from "isn't deserved." You can make a lot of policy-based arguments against extreme concentration - whether in a monopolistic company, a huge government, or in a billionaire - is a bad thing, overall, from various angles. And lots of people are making those different arguments. The "people are just lucky" argument is one, but I'm not seeing that one dominate my magazine and newspaper RSS feeds at the expense of any others.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jodrellblank 8y ago
  You're claiming that 100 people in his position, would not do as well. Therefore he was different. If it was simply a matter of self-made difference, all his peers could do that too. Which means whatever it is, is something he was born with. Why does he get credit for being born different? Does he get credit for being male as well? Either it's something any of his peers could do, and he's not special, so why praise him, or it's something nobody else could do, so he was born with it, and why praise him? It’s been 25+ years and basically none of them did anything with their lives Did any of them have the situation to be the provider of the dominant OS of the dominant computer platform of the last 30 years? Why do you think that isn't enough to account for "far, far better" all on its own?
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    Are you asking why he gets credit for making good choices with the opportunities he was given?
    - jodrellblank 8y ago
      Yes. Where do you think his ability and desire to "make good choices" comes from? Was he born with it - then why praise him? Or did he learn it - then why praise him instead of his childhood environment? Why say that special results come from a special person, instead of saying that a special person comes from a special environment? Why confuse "making money" with "good choices" just because you'd like to have a lot of money, even though lots of people were harmed along the way?
  - foobiekr 8y ago
    Most of the people I was referring to most likely had opportunities and backing exceeding young Gates, yes. But I don't think your point is reasonable. In your model, there appears to be nothing anyone can take credit for, effort or not.
    - jodrellblank 8y ago
      And yet, can you point to the specific thing that he deserves credit for? Maybe my model is right, and there is nothing anyone can take credit for. Why did he put in effort, and others didn't? Was he born to work harder, then why praise him? Or was he taught to work harder? Then why praise him. Given a choice of comfort or effort, he chose effort - why did he choose that and others didn't? Because he's morally superior? Then why is he, was he born that way or taught to be that way? And either way, why praise him for it? The other complaint I have is your framing where "not earning one of the largest fortunes ever seen on the planet" is the cutoff for "did nothing with their lives" and then using that to scorn the peers who didn't. When do you see a discussion about how worthless Mozart's school peers were, or how Dostoyevsky's peers didn't write any good books? The other other complaint is that writing a good book is something a person does, guiding money into their bank account is something a Capitalist does. Many people don't like DOS or Windows or SharePoint as a technology, don't like Microsoft's business practices, and don't like unbalancedly wealthy CEOs - which bit of that is the credit-worthy part? Making a successful computer company in the 1980-1990s with family wealth and connections and funding while breaking the law to stop competition is surely "playing on easy mode" if anything is, right? Where's the praise for the people who achieved a lot smaller monetary success, but did so against harder odds?
cma 8y ago
Gates' mother was on a charity board with the CEO of IBM, she wasn't a director at IBM. It was still a huge advantage.

foobiekr 8y ago

How basic is required to qualify as self-made in a meaningful sense? I’m not talking about “Should he have grounded up sand and made his own chips and boards?” stuff, I mean lots of people have similar circumstances to Gates and made nothing of themselves. As it happens the high school I went to, as a kid from a mostly lower middle class family with severe issues being able to pay attention in school in the eighties, had a lot of kids of rich families. These kids had everything - expensive cars at 16, huge houses, nice places to live, etc. I have followed them along. It’s been 25+ years and basically none of them did anything with their lives, though to be frank I think they could certainly have been much happier and have had more experiences. The other misfits and I have done ok. So Gates started from a better place and did far, far better than his peers. Does he not get credit for that?

aabeshou 8y ago
I would agree that wealth shouldn't negate his accomplishments. I think a lot of people who point out Gates' family wealth are reacting to the current political/ideological climate which would say "look, Bill Gates is self-made, so anyone can be!" neglecting the ridiculous enabling impact that enormous family wealth has, and shaming poor people for not being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  >are reacting to the current political/ideological climate Which climate are you referring to? The current climate in the US on the left is being dominated by the narrative that rich people are only successful because of their environment so they don't have the claim to their money that they think they do. "Every billionaire is a policy failure" https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-policy-guy-every-billionaire-is-a-policy-failure/ https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/alexandria-ocasio-cor... This view is not a reaction to balance anything out, it's a policy position that billionaires should not exist because they do not deserve that much money.
  - majormajor 8y ago
    I don't see talk of deserving things in your link, or of reasons for success. Someone could be both completely "deserving" of having received the income and "guilty" of "hoarding" it at the same time. "The acquisition of that much wealth has bad consequences. A moral society needs guardrails against it." "Moral society" isn't explored in that article, but "has bad consequences" is pretty far away from "isn't deserved." You can make a lot of policy-based arguments against extreme concentration - whether in a monopolistic company, a huge government, or in a billionaire - is a bad thing, overall, from various angles. And lots of people are making those different arguments. The "people are just lucky" argument is one, but I'm not seeing that one dominate my magazine and newspaper RSS feeds at the expense of any others.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jodrellblank 8y ago
You're claiming that 100 people in his position, would not do as well. Therefore he was different. If it was simply a matter of self-made difference, all his peers could do that too. Which means whatever it is, is something he was born with. Why does he get credit for being born different? Does he get credit for being male as well? Either it's something any of his peers could do, and he's not special, so why praise him, or it's something nobody else could do, so he was born with it, and why praise him? It’s been 25+ years and basically none of them did anything with their lives Did any of them have the situation to be the provider of the dominant OS of the dominant computer platform of the last 30 years? Why do you think that isn't enough to account for "far, far better" all on its own?
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Are you asking why he gets credit for making good choices with the opportunities he was given?
  - jodrellblank 8y ago
    Yes. Where do you think his ability and desire to "make good choices" comes from? Was he born with it - then why praise him? Or did he learn it - then why praise him instead of his childhood environment? Why say that special results come from a special person, instead of saying that a special person comes from a special environment? Why confuse "making money" with "good choices" just because you'd like to have a lot of money, even though lots of people were harmed along the way?
- foobiekr 8y ago
  Most of the people I was referring to most likely had opportunities and backing exceeding young Gates, yes. But I don't think your point is reasonable. In your model, there appears to be nothing anyone can take credit for, effort or not.
  - jodrellblank 8y ago
    And yet, can you point to the specific thing that he deserves credit for? Maybe my model is right, and there is nothing anyone can take credit for. Why did he put in effort, and others didn't? Was he born to work harder, then why praise him? Or was he taught to work harder? Then why praise him. Given a choice of comfort or effort, he chose effort - why did he choose that and others didn't? Because he's morally superior? Then why is he, was he born that way or taught to be that way? And either way, why praise him for it? The other complaint I have is your framing where "not earning one of the largest fortunes ever seen on the planet" is the cutoff for "did nothing with their lives" and then using that to scorn the peers who didn't. When do you see a discussion about how worthless Mozart's school peers were, or how Dostoyevsky's peers didn't write any good books? The other other complaint is that writing a good book is something a person does, guiding money into their bank account is something a Capitalist does. Many people don't like DOS or Windows or SharePoint as a technology, don't like Microsoft's business practices, and don't like unbalancedly wealthy CEOs - which bit of that is the credit-worthy part? Making a successful computer company in the 1980-1990s with family wealth and connections and funding while breaking the law to stop competition is surely "playing on easy mode" if anything is, right? Where's the praise for the people who achieved a lot smaller monetary success, but did so against harder odds?

cma 8y ago

Gates' mother was on a charity board with the CEO of IBM, she wasn't a director at IBM. It was still a huge advantage.