4 ms·

Add to that that tech companies concentrate wealth line never before. Airbnb takes a cut of transactions not only around the US but across the world. Not everyo

by tyre 6y ago

Add to that that tech companies concentrate wealth line never before. Airbnb takes a cut of transactions not only around the US but across the world. Not everyone works in the Bay Area, but how many of the founders, early employees, and VCs do? The ones who really make massive wealth? Not 100%, but most. Same with Stripe, the same with Facebook, Google, etc. we’re pulling tremendous wealth into a small area, with technology that can scale tremendously large businesses with fewer people. This isn’t to say that, for example, wealth from finance companies doesn’t centralize in New York and London. That’s bad too. It’s not to say that good things don’t come from these companies (though Facebook seems to be a net negative for humanity.) But this level of wealth concentration and inequality is detrimental to the fabric of a society. We’re not better off, we’re not more innovative, we’re not healthier or more cohesive or happier when this happens.

strikelaserclaw 6y ago
undoubtedly, i think theres a sweet spot for letting people gain rewards from their own hard work/talent/value creation, but i think as a society we are moving into the dangerous territory where that balance is totally skewed in one direction.
- VRay 6y ago
  You're looking mixing up cause and effect You're mad about "cause": Evil startup stiffs tons of small players across the world You're lashing out at "effect": Lots of money gets concentrated around the evil startup's headquarters A lot of really bad stuff has happened in history because of this sort of bad logic, so you really need to rethink your position
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  First off, I really like your username! I'm sure you had a particular robotic animal in mind when you chose it. Secondly, a gain from one's own rewards is supposed to be in one direction. A person is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Not anyone else. There are only a few people at the top of any profession or activity. But this fact seems to be ignored for some "utopian" dream where the guilt or coercion of the successful compels, via self-abnegation, some "compensation" to the masses for the latter's lack of success. That the best are merely cogs to keep churning to the rhythms and dictates of his fellow man and of his government. That the best see no value in their own work or selves without others as their chief barometer. However, I don't see it argued that Usain Bolt should slow down so that he doesn't ruin the Olympic Sprint for the rest of his competitors. I don't see it argued that intelligent students should stop going to Harvard/Stanford/{take your pick} because such academic success makes everyone else look mediocre by comparison. Why should it be any different in Silicon Valley? Why should one accept inefficiency or inadequacy? It benefits no one to either become or accept a prize that is lesser in value than the sum of one's actions. Except perhaps for martyrs and masochists.
  - strikelaserclaw 6y ago
    Hey fellow zoids fan, first of all i never said people creating value shouldn't be rewarded, i think they should be rewarded extremely well but at the end of the day, no individual can survive without a society, this is a fact. What we need is a more balanced society where people can start at some base level and can gain based on their contributions. As for your Usain Bolt analogy, for me its more like Usain Bolt is a great runner so he gets 99.9% of sponsorships but theres some kid in Uganda with even more potential, yet he becomes a farmer because he can't find a sponsorship. There are talented people all over the world, a good society affords them the opportunity to realize their potential, something which i don't think is possible with uncontrolled winner take all in the economic marketplace.
zdragnar 6y ago
The use of Airbnb seems odd to me. People around the world use it because they don't like the alternatives. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do business?
- runarberg 6y ago
  I think the problem here is the consolidation of an entire industry around a single Silicon Valley company. In any other time in history this would be called a monopoly, and that is a problem. If AirBnB was just an aggregator, say a cooperative standard where hotels and guesthouses could post their services and the profits of AirBnB would go back to the industry, that would be fine. But it is not, the profits go to shareholders and Silicon valley executives. And that is the problem.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    There are competitors- VRBO, for example. AirBnB have a significant share, but hardly a monopoly. If Airbnb were just an aggregator, it'd be pretty worthless. For myself and my wife, finding superhosts on Airbnb is one of the indicators we use to feel comfortable that we probably aren't getting ripped off. The relatively simple interface for scheduling, requesting changes, paying, seeing up front what taxes and surcharges will be applied etc. are all things the hotel industry has had decades to implement, and they didn't. In fact, they still haven't. If hotels and guesthouses formed such a cooperative with all the same features, I would use it- especially if they didn't add on their own service charge like Airbnb. The boom of renting rooms and houses may have come with its downsides, but from the consumer point of view, AirBnB has been a godsend for those of us who don't like hotels, travel with pets, and go to out-of-the-way places that don't otherwise tend to attract a lot of online presence.
- matkoniecz 6y ago
  Noticing some consequences does not mean that they are calling for outlawing them.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
monoideism 6y ago
> But this level of wealth concentration and inequality is detrimental to the fabric of a society. We’re not better off, we’re not more innovative, we’re not healthier or more cohesive or happier when this happens. I agree 100%, but you're ignoring the other factor that is detrimental to society: social factors. Notably, the divorce rate and single-parent rate among poor and working class Americans of all races has skyrocketed. Now, top earners will often tell you that there's nothing wrong with divorce or single-parenthood, but observe what they're actually doing themselves! Their low divorce and single-parent rates have remained steady over the past few decades, even as everyone else's is plummeting [1]. In addition, the middle and working class are losing their social support networks. Church attendance is down, union membership is down, and volunteer organization participation is down among those groups. In contrast, most top earners have large and robust social networks. I could go on and on about other social issues. Yes, wealth and income inequality is a big problem, but it's only one aspect of the decline of America's middle and working class (excluding the upper-middle class, which has continued to rise). We need to stress and incentivize social factors as well. The non-wealth and non-upper-middle-class should emulate what the top earners do in their social lives, not what they say. I still strongly support a wealth tax, and higher income taxes, as long as they're distributed directly to our citizens and not used to build additional government bureaucracy. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-declining-and-likely-deepening-inequality/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-...
- taurath 6y ago
  Could also be the tail wagging the dog. People arrested for say being drunk in public are gonna be broke, because they don’t have mansions to drink in. Could be that the cultural problems you’re describing follow whole towns being hollowed out as all wealth is transferred to winner take all cities, as free trade knocks out industries with no help nor replacement.
  - monoideism 6y ago
    Yes. It's also very possible that the two aspects are synergistic.
- 6y ago

by tyre 6y ago

strikelaserclaw 6y ago

undoubtedly, i think theres a sweet spot for letting people gain rewards from their own hard work/talent/value creation, but i think as a society we are moving into the dangerous territory where that balance is totally skewed in one direction.

VRay 6y ago
You're looking mixing up cause and effect You're mad about "cause": Evil startup stiffs tons of small players across the world You're lashing out at "effect": Lots of money gets concentrated around the evil startup's headquarters A lot of really bad stuff has happened in history because of this sort of bad logic, so you really need to rethink your position
Dracophoenix 6y ago
First off, I really like your username! I'm sure you had a particular robotic animal in mind when you chose it. Secondly, a gain from one's own rewards is supposed to be in one direction. A person is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Not anyone else. There are only a few people at the top of any profession or activity. But this fact seems to be ignored for some "utopian" dream where the guilt or coercion of the successful compels, via self-abnegation, some "compensation" to the masses for the latter's lack of success. That the best are merely cogs to keep churning to the rhythms and dictates of his fellow man and of his government. That the best see no value in their own work or selves without others as their chief barometer. However, I don't see it argued that Usain Bolt should slow down so that he doesn't ruin the Olympic Sprint for the rest of his competitors. I don't see it argued that intelligent students should stop going to Harvard/Stanford/{take your pick} because such academic success makes everyone else look mediocre by comparison. Why should it be any different in Silicon Valley? Why should one accept inefficiency or inadequacy? It benefits no one to either become or accept a prize that is lesser in value than the sum of one's actions. Except perhaps for martyrs and masochists.
- strikelaserclaw 6y ago
  Hey fellow zoids fan, first of all i never said people creating value shouldn't be rewarded, i think they should be rewarded extremely well but at the end of the day, no individual can survive without a society, this is a fact. What we need is a more balanced society where people can start at some base level and can gain based on their contributions. As for your Usain Bolt analogy, for me its more like Usain Bolt is a great runner so he gets 99.9% of sponsorships but theres some kid in Uganda with even more potential, yet he becomes a farmer because he can't find a sponsorship. There are talented people all over the world, a good society affords them the opportunity to realize their potential, something which i don't think is possible with uncontrolled winner take all in the economic marketplace.

zdragnar 6y ago

The use of Airbnb seems odd to me. People around the world use it because they don't like the alternatives. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do business?

runarberg 6y ago
I think the problem here is the consolidation of an entire industry around a single Silicon Valley company. In any other time in history this would be called a monopoly, and that is a problem. If AirBnB was just an aggregator, say a cooperative standard where hotels and guesthouses could post their services and the profits of AirBnB would go back to the industry, that would be fine. But it is not, the profits go to shareholders and Silicon valley executives. And that is the problem.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  There are competitors- VRBO, for example. AirBnB have a significant share, but hardly a monopoly. If Airbnb were just an aggregator, it'd be pretty worthless. For myself and my wife, finding superhosts on Airbnb is one of the indicators we use to feel comfortable that we probably aren't getting ripped off. The relatively simple interface for scheduling, requesting changes, paying, seeing up front what taxes and surcharges will be applied etc. are all things the hotel industry has had decades to implement, and they didn't. In fact, they still haven't. If hotels and guesthouses formed such a cooperative with all the same features, I would use it- especially if they didn't add on their own service charge like Airbnb. The boom of renting rooms and houses may have come with its downsides, but from the consumer point of view, AirBnB has been a godsend for those of us who don't like hotels, travel with pets, and go to out-of-the-way places that don't otherwise tend to attract a lot of online presence.
matkoniecz 6y ago
Noticing some consequences does not mean that they are calling for outlawing them.
- zdragnar 6y ago

monoideism 6y ago

> But this level of wealth concentration and inequality is detrimental to the fabric of a society. We’re not better off, we’re not more innovative, we’re not healthier or more cohesive or happier when this happens. I agree 100%, but you're ignoring the other factor that is detrimental to society: social factors. Notably, the divorce rate and single-parent rate among poor and working class Americans of all races has skyrocketed. Now, top earners will often tell you that there's nothing wrong with divorce or single-parenthood, but observe what they're actually doing themselves! Their low divorce and single-parent rates have remained steady over the past few decades, even as everyone else's is plummeting [1]. In addition, the middle and working class are losing their social support networks. Church attendance is down, union membership is down, and volunteer organization participation is down among those groups. In contrast, most top earners have large and robust social networks. I could go on and on about other social issues. Yes, wealth and income inequality is a big problem, but it's only one aspect of the decline of America's middle and working class (excluding the upper-middle class, which has continued to rise). We need to stress and incentivize social factors as well. The non-wealth and non-upper-middle-class should emulate what the top earners do in their social lives, not what they say. I still strongly support a wealth tax, and higher income taxes, as long as they're distributed directly to our citizens and not used to build additional government bureaucracy. 1. https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-declining-and-likely-deepening-inequality/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/middle-class-marriage-is-...

taurath 6y ago
Could also be the tail wagging the dog. People arrested for say being drunk in public are gonna be broke, because they don’t have mansions to drink in. Could be that the cultural problems you’re describing follow whole towns being hollowed out as all wealth is transferred to winner take all cities, as free trade knocks out industries with no help nor replacement.
- monoideism 6y ago
  Yes. It's also very possible that the two aspects are synergistic.
6y ago