3 ms·

So these people want to redistribute wealth based on productivity increases from entrepreneurs to works. Even though the productivity increases have very little

So these people want to redistribute wealth based on productivity increases from entrepreneurs to works. Even though the productivity increases have very little to do with the workers being more productive and more to do with technology and automation. This is also despite though by their own admission workers wages and living standards increased over that same time. Seems crazy to me. Seems like because productivity increased and ease of business has increased more people should be creating businesses since you need less workers to run your business. This also includes the fact by their own admission because the rich can't just store this money most just goes into reinvestment anyway.

frankbreetz 6y ago
the owners, have changed very little. If a factory becomes automated, the owner of the factory had access to capitol, and the workers had access to labor. I don't see why one of these should be rewarded for production increases and the other shouldn't. You can't create a business without capitol, therefore one might conclude the wealth inequality is keeping most people from starting a business even if they have a good idea.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  The owners have change a lot. In todays world more entrepreneurs don't supply their capital. They supply the ideas, organization, innovation, risk, and maybe a small bit of saving but they from bezos to elon none really supply the capital. So a lot of things may be keep workers from trying but it isn't capital. The workers doesn't get more of a business for the same reason you don't get a better grade cause you peer got a better grade. The workers didn't supply more labor, but the owner supplied more ideas, better organization, and better intuition. None of bezo's automation ideas has anything to do with workers.
  - andrekandre 6y ago
    it takes two to tango entrepreneurs without workers are just some guy in a room with an "idea" at some point, the distribution and sharing of the profit becomes unfair (workers also risk a lot too, as they can be fired at-will, and loose thier livelyhood at any time at the whim of the owner) and this is the fundamental problem we are facing i think
    - DeonPenny 6y ago
      No an entrepreneur in a room before raising money can easily be worth millions and that typically what happens. The workers come to help scale the business but to say they get nothing is untrue. They don't take as much risk and their share should be what they negotiate for. The fact is thats exactly what a price or wage is. Fideling with prices because you personally don't like the number two people determined what a worker is worth typically ends in disaster. No matter who it is who trying to price adjust they are usually to ignorant of all parts of the business the to know enough to pick a correct wage or price for labor.
  - skitout 6y ago
    Cost of starting a startup have dramatically decreased, but between the moment you launch and the moment you are in position to raise angel or VC money, well you definitely need some money most of the time! And starting an (ambitious) startup is more risky and is more luck dependent that starting an old style business franchise, or most company in the 80's, which make having capital even more important. This is more risky, but with more extreme result: you can get much bigger much faster, with network effect, putting the company and its CEO in a more dominant position... We are more in a winner takes all economy, with more losers. "None of bezo's automation ideas has anything to do with workers" ; without employees, without their work creativity innovation, Bezos would be poor... The increase of productivity of a company is the consequence of what did the company. And the company is its workers, and its shareholders. Why the workers - that generates ideas, put them in place, make the company running - should have now a smaller part of the productivity gain than before ? (And before automation was big too)

frankbreetz 6y ago

the owners, have changed very little. If a factory becomes automated, the owner of the factory had access to capitol, and the workers had access to labor. I don't see why one of these should be rewarded for production increases and the other shouldn't. You can't create a business without capitol, therefore one might conclude the wealth inequality is keeping most people from starting a business even if they have a good idea.

DeonPenny 6y ago
The owners have change a lot. In todays world more entrepreneurs don't supply their capital. They supply the ideas, organization, innovation, risk, and maybe a small bit of saving but they from bezos to elon none really supply the capital. So a lot of things may be keep workers from trying but it isn't capital. The workers doesn't get more of a business for the same reason you don't get a better grade cause you peer got a better grade. The workers didn't supply more labor, but the owner supplied more ideas, better organization, and better intuition. None of bezo's automation ideas has anything to do with workers.
- andrekandre 6y ago
  it takes two to tango entrepreneurs without workers are just some guy in a room with an "idea" at some point, the distribution and sharing of the profit becomes unfair (workers also risk a lot too, as they can be fired at-will, and loose thier livelyhood at any time at the whim of the owner) and this is the fundamental problem we are facing i think
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    No an entrepreneur in a room before raising money can easily be worth millions and that typically what happens. The workers come to help scale the business but to say they get nothing is untrue. They don't take as much risk and their share should be what they negotiate for. The fact is thats exactly what a price or wage is. Fideling with prices because you personally don't like the number two people determined what a worker is worth typically ends in disaster. No matter who it is who trying to price adjust they are usually to ignorant of all parts of the business the to know enough to pick a correct wage or price for labor.
- skitout 6y ago
  Cost of starting a startup have dramatically decreased, but between the moment you launch and the moment you are in position to raise angel or VC money, well you definitely need some money most of the time! And starting an (ambitious) startup is more risky and is more luck dependent that starting an old style business franchise, or most company in the 80's, which make having capital even more important. This is more risky, but with more extreme result: you can get much bigger much faster, with network effect, putting the company and its CEO in a more dominant position... We are more in a winner takes all economy, with more losers. "None of bezo's automation ideas has anything to do with workers" ; without employees, without their work creativity innovation, Bezos would be poor... The increase of productivity of a company is the consequence of what did the company. And the company is its workers, and its shareholders. Why the workers - that generates ideas, put them in place, make the company running - should have now a smaller part of the productivity gain than before ? (And before automation was big too)