4 ms·

I agree. To me, the post reads a bit like this: "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have mo

by timkam 5y ago

I agree. To me, the post reads a bit like this: "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have more inequality, but the super-rich [like PG himself] really deserve it, because they are innovators." The post does not cover the arguably more important questions like "Are the working and middle classes better off?", "Was there less innovation back then or were lesser paid innovators just as innovative?", and "Can we have as much or even more innovation with less inequality?".

gen220 5y ago
Yep, I think there’s a lazy argument that tends to get made to justify the status quo, namely that inequality is necessary for innovation. Of course it is, otherwise why take risks? But this does not justify the 1000x inequality that we have today separating CEOs from laborers and 10000x separating founders from laborers. What if those numbers were 100x and 5000x? Might we see even more innovation, and stronger communities? The payoffs figures of today are also used to justify truly stupid risks. There are ponzi scheme type people who would rather masquerade at being a founder 10 times over in search of getting lucky once, screwing over investors and laborers in the process. Maybe if the disparity weren’t so eye popping, the same people would go into other fields instead.
didibus 5y ago
You hit the nail on the head! It also didn't discuss that it seems more so that there is a new technology which is enabling a shift on riches, but it's likely that the next phase is one of inherited wealth again. Unless he believes that the children of those new fortunes won't inherit anything or will keep being surpassed in riches by the next generation startups. But I'm not so sure, I think it's just a cycle, refresh most company from a non tech based one to a tech one, and once that's done, it'll go back to consolidation and inheritance, until the next big technology.
whimsicalism 5y ago
Moreover, people seem to continuously forget the fact that half of all wealth in the United States is inherited by the top 5% wealthiest households, not 'earned' via value creation. In general, I tend to agree with Rawls that this notion of 'deserving' is irrelevant to the question of how we ought to distribute goods/welfare in society.
- FabHK 5y ago
  Yes, not only good old Rawls, but many contemporary writers make arguments about the limits of meritocracy. Some books I can recommend: Robert H. Frank: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167404/success-and-luck https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167404/su... https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/06/28/book-review-success-and-luck-good-fortune-and-the-myth-of-meritocracy-by-robert-h-frank/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/06/28/book-rev... Michael Sandel: The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/books/review/the-tyranny-of-merit-michael-j-sandel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/books/review/the-tyranny-...
CPLX 5y ago
> "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have more inequality, but the super-rich [like PG himself] really deserve it, because they are innovators." Indeed. Or to elaborate a little: "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have substantially more inequality and compounding human misery, and I am super-rich. Because I am unable to identify any specific moment in my life when I made unethical decisions personally it is not possible for me to understand a view of the world that sees my current existence as the product of an unjust system."

by timkam 5y ago

gen220 5y ago

Yep, I think there’s a lazy argument that tends to get made to justify the status quo, namely that inequality is necessary for innovation. Of course it is, otherwise why take risks? But this does not justify the 1000x inequality that we have today separating CEOs from laborers and 10000x separating founders from laborers. What if those numbers were 100x and 5000x? Might we see even more innovation, and stronger communities? The payoffs figures of today are also used to justify truly stupid risks. There are ponzi scheme type people who would rather masquerade at being a founder 10 times over in search of getting lucky once, screwing over investors and laborers in the process. Maybe if the disparity weren’t so eye popping, the same people would go into other fields instead.

didibus 5y ago

You hit the nail on the head! It also didn't discuss that it seems more so that there is a new technology which is enabling a shift on riches, but it's likely that the next phase is one of inherited wealth again. Unless he believes that the children of those new fortunes won't inherit anything or will keep being surpassed in riches by the next generation startups. But I'm not so sure, I think it's just a cycle, refresh most company from a non tech based one to a tech one, and once that's done, it'll go back to consolidation and inheritance, until the next big technology.

whimsicalism 5y ago

Moreover, people seem to continuously forget the fact that half of all wealth in the United States is inherited by the top 5% wealthiest households, not 'earned' via value creation. In general, I tend to agree with Rawls that this notion of 'deserving' is irrelevant to the question of how we ought to distribute goods/welfare in society.

FabHK 5y ago
Yes, not only good old Rawls, but many contemporary writers make arguments about the limits of meritocracy. Some books I can recommend: Robert H. Frank: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167404/success-and-luck https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167404/su... https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/06/28/book-review-success-and-luck-good-fortune-and-the-myth-of-meritocracy-by-robert-h-frank/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/06/28/book-rev... Michael Sandel: The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/books/review/the-tyranny-of-merit-michael-j-sandel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/books/review/the-tyranny-...

CPLX 5y ago

> "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have more inequality, but the super-rich [like PG himself] really deserve it, because they are innovators." Indeed. Or to elaborate a little: "Back then, we did not have as much inequality, but the super-rich did not deserve their wealth. Now, we have substantially more inequality and compounding human misery, and I am super-rich. Because I am unable to identify any specific moment in my life when I made unethical decisions personally it is not possible for me to understand a view of the world that sees my current existence as the product of an unjust system."