4 ms·

It kind of paints a dark picture. The family unit used to be like a person who never died. Wealth, ideas, skills, values all would be passed down and developed

It kind of paints a dark picture. The family unit used to be like a person who never died. Wealth, ideas, skills, values all would be passed down and developed over time. Now the corporations can outlive us, they can wait. Our families are weaker than the corporations. That scares me.

JackFr 6y ago
Many people find corporations more democratic than an aristocracy. I’d rather have AMZN on NASDAQ than have Lord Bezos become a trillionaire.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Skunkleton 6y ago
  Good thing we don't have to choose!
- CarbyAu 6y ago
  Your second sentence, what's the difference? Isn't he likely going to be the next trillionaire anyway, with or without the title of Lord?
  - philplckthun 6y ago
    Also is there some magical step once you’re a trillionaire? Surely at this point it doesn’t make a difference anymore exactly how rich the guy is.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - woofie11 6y ago
      Nope. There are classes among the ultrawealthy too: * Lower-class ultrawealthy have billions on paper, but no liquidity. Think of a founder sitting on a pre-IPO unicorn. * Jeff Bezos is lower-middle-class ultrawealthy. He has wealth, but he can't use it, since it's locked up in Amazon. If he sold it all, Amazon stock would collapse. * Bill Gates is middle-class rich. He has "free" wealth which he can do with as he pleases. * Upper-class wealthy have wealth in political structures (think Saudi princes for a visible example, or low-key formerly noble European families who hold massive amounts of land). Their wealth is now structured so it can survive economic collapses, wars, and so on, and they can command real power through global political influence. It's really about how much you can use your wealth for power and influence.
  - prepend 6y ago
    Even random is better than divine right, I think. Having an aristocratic title that passes down is much worse than some rich dude leaving money because that lasts hundreds of years. And gets taxed.
    - CarbyAu 6y ago
      I also disagree with hereditary titles. But in a practical sense, I also don't think the next generation of Bezo's are going to be anything but obscenely wealthy. And the generation after that. And after that. While the hereditary title was a bad idea, they also had turnover too. So I think it is much of a muchness.
      - prepend 6y ago
        Yes, Bezos’ kids will be wealthy and even in 500 years they will be wealthy (look at J&J, Rockefeller, Canegie, etc) but that’s still better than the earldoms and such in the UK where there’s still massive chunks of land centuries later controlled only because of birth. Turnover was based on royal decree, not bankruptcy/ legal transfer/etc So not saying trillionaires are perfect, just that they have fewer flaws than aristocracy.
RangerScience 6y ago
That's... a super interesting perspective. I'm super intrigued and think you're onto something. In my corner of the culture, I suspect a lot of this has to with - to be blunt, and harsh - intergenerational bigotry. There are so, so many that I know who have had to cut out their blood family because of shit treatment and behavior. Definitely not the only thing tho. I get along great with my family, and we don't have much like this going on - some ideas and values, but it's not like I was raised with a family motto or anything like that. I don't know enough of the wealthy / super wealthy, and those that I do know I don't think I know well enough, but I get the impression that their families DO actually still do this. The family itself is some form of legal entity, and parents actively invest in their kids in a way that's... different. AFAIK that's mostly just because they actually can - independently wealthy AND independently successful means you don't lose much if you go "unemployed" in order to raise kids. I say all this not to disparage anything, but to brainstorm things to aim for in my own life...

JackFr 6y ago

Many people find corporations more democratic than an aristocracy. I’d rather have AMZN on NASDAQ than have Lord Bezos become a trillionaire.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Skunkleton 6y ago
Good thing we don't have to choose!
CarbyAu 6y ago
Your second sentence, what's the difference? Isn't he likely going to be the next trillionaire anyway, with or without the title of Lord?
- philplckthun 6y ago
  Also is there some magical step once you’re a trillionaire? Surely at this point it doesn’t make a difference anymore exactly how rich the guy is.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - woofie11 6y ago
    Nope. There are classes among the ultrawealthy too: * Lower-class ultrawealthy have billions on paper, but no liquidity. Think of a founder sitting on a pre-IPO unicorn. * Jeff Bezos is lower-middle-class ultrawealthy. He has wealth, but he can't use it, since it's locked up in Amazon. If he sold it all, Amazon stock would collapse. * Bill Gates is middle-class rich. He has "free" wealth which he can do with as he pleases. * Upper-class wealthy have wealth in political structures (think Saudi princes for a visible example, or low-key formerly noble European families who hold massive amounts of land). Their wealth is now structured so it can survive economic collapses, wars, and so on, and they can command real power through global political influence. It's really about how much you can use your wealth for power and influence.
- prepend 6y ago
  Even random is better than divine right, I think. Having an aristocratic title that passes down is much worse than some rich dude leaving money because that lasts hundreds of years. And gets taxed.
  - CarbyAu 6y ago
    I also disagree with hereditary titles. But in a practical sense, I also don't think the next generation of Bezo's are going to be anything but obscenely wealthy. And the generation after that. And after that. While the hereditary title was a bad idea, they also had turnover too. So I think it is much of a muchness.
    - prepend 6y ago
      Yes, Bezos’ kids will be wealthy and even in 500 years they will be wealthy (look at J&J, Rockefeller, Canegie, etc) but that’s still better than the earldoms and such in the UK where there’s still massive chunks of land centuries later controlled only because of birth. Turnover was based on royal decree, not bankruptcy/ legal transfer/etc So not saying trillionaires are perfect, just that they have fewer flaws than aristocracy.

RangerScience 6y ago

That's... a super interesting perspective. I'm super intrigued and think you're onto something. In my corner of the culture, I suspect a lot of this has to with - to be blunt, and harsh - intergenerational bigotry. There are so, so many that I know who have had to cut out their blood family because of shit treatment and behavior. Definitely not the only thing tho. I get along great with my family, and we don't have much like this going on - some ideas and values, but it's not like I was raised with a family motto or anything like that. I don't know enough of the wealthy / super wealthy, and those that I do know I don't think I know well enough, but I get the impression that their families DO actually still do this. The family itself is some form of legal entity, and parents actively invest in their kids in a way that's... different. AFAIK that's mostly just because they actually can - independently wealthy AND independently successful means you don't lose much if you go "unemployed" in order to raise kids. I say all this not to disparage anything, but to brainstorm things to aim for in my own life...