4 ms·

There are definitely a lot of rich people that don't do anything useful, but looking at the Forbe's list, it's populated by business people who, regardless of t

by ksdale 5y ago

There are definitely a lot of rich people that don't do anything useful, but looking at the Forbe's list, it's populated by business people who, regardless of the usefulness of their businesses, have worked a lot. (https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/) And then there's this - https://www.le.ac.uk/hi/polyptyques/capitulare/trans.html https://www.le.ac.uk/hi/polyptyques/capitulare/trans.html It's a guide for the people running Charlemagne's holdings. Naturally the nobility aren't doing the hardest work, but they're responsible for at least overseeing the creation of a lot of wealth if they want to keep their position.

Synaesthesia 5y ago
They have not worked hard to earn their billions so much as used their power and influence in a clever way to suit their own ends. Most wealthly people also started with an inheritance.
- ksdale 5y ago
  Most wealthy people do not end up with billions, and most of them end up with less than their parents had. While I don't disagree that they've used power and influence to suit their own ends, there's practically not a single person on that list who isn't a workaholic. I don't hold any of these people in high esteem but in my opinion, it's silly to suggest they haven't worked hard. Of course, they haven't worked a million times harder than anyone else, but they have "worked hard to earn their billions."
a1369209993 5y ago
The question wasn't how hard they worked, but how must value they created. As a trivial example, digging a ditch and then filling back in has work X and value 0, wheras digging the same ditch and then digging slightly further to connect it to a river and provide convenient water for irrigation has work X/2(+1) and value 1 (in some arbitrary units). Forbe's list is populated by people whose work ultimately consists primarily of creating problems for others to solve.
- ksdale 5y ago
  That seems obviously untrue as well. The business world runs on Excel. Before Amazon, shipping so cheap and so fast was unimaginable, not to mention being able to find anything, anywhere. SpaceX is making getting stuff into orbit possible again after a very long time. Despite the fact that ads suck, Google has created a ton of value in my life. All of this stuff is far from perfect, but it's definitely value.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > The business world runs on Excel. (To take the most straightforward example.) Bill Gates did not write Excel. None of the programming or other actual, object level work involved in creating the value of Excel was done by Bills Gates, personally. It was done by programmers and other employees at Microsoft. Not even much, and not "obviously" even any, of the meta-level work of separating those who benefited from Excel from their money (nominally, and to a limited extent actually, to support those who did the object-level work) was done by Bill Gates. The question is what value Bill Gates produced, not his employees.
    - ksdale 5y ago
      Ok so he wrote an operating system. And then you'll say that wasn't actually valuable, leaving aside the question of whether Microsoft would have existed at all without him.

by ksdale 5y ago

Synaesthesia 5y ago

They have not worked hard to earn their billions so much as used their power and influence in a clever way to suit their own ends. Most wealthly people also started with an inheritance.

ksdale 5y ago
Most wealthy people do not end up with billions, and most of them end up with less than their parents had. While I don't disagree that they've used power and influence to suit their own ends, there's practically not a single person on that list who isn't a workaholic. I don't hold any of these people in high esteem but in my opinion, it's silly to suggest they haven't worked hard. Of course, they haven't worked a million times harder than anyone else, but they have "worked hard to earn their billions."

a1369209993 5y ago

The question wasn't how hard they worked, but how must value they created. As a trivial example, digging a ditch and then filling back in has work X and value 0, wheras digging the same ditch and then digging slightly further to connect it to a river and provide convenient water for irrigation has work X/2(+1) and value 1 (in some arbitrary units). Forbe's list is populated by people whose work ultimately consists primarily of creating problems for others to solve.

ksdale 5y ago
That seems obviously untrue as well. The business world runs on Excel. Before Amazon, shipping so cheap and so fast was unimaginable, not to mention being able to find anything, anywhere. SpaceX is making getting stuff into orbit possible again after a very long time. Despite the fact that ads suck, Google has created a ton of value in my life. All of this stuff is far from perfect, but it's definitely value.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > The business world runs on Excel. (To take the most straightforward example.) Bill Gates did not write Excel. None of the programming or other actual, object level work involved in creating the value of Excel was done by Bills Gates, personally. It was done by programmers and other employees at Microsoft. Not even much, and not "obviously" even any, of the meta-level work of separating those who benefited from Excel from their money (nominally, and to a limited extent actually, to support those who did the object-level work) was done by Bill Gates. The question is what value Bill Gates produced, not his employees.
  - ksdale 5y ago
    Ok so he wrote an operating system. And then you'll say that wasn't actually valuable, leaving aside the question of whether Microsoft would have existed at all without him.