5 ms·
> In a world where I am a trillionaire, those gains necessarily have come from exploitation and deep unequality Why?
by reese_john 5y ago
> In a world where I am a trillionaire, those gains necessarily have come from exploitation and deep unequality
Why?
- addaon 5y agoBecause there's no indication that we have access to resources to allow the billions of people on the planet to live the life of an (inflation-adjusted) trillionaire. Our exponential-growth model of resource availability and the economy as a whole is limited by basic physics to be a brief window, followed by an unknown duration of quartic growth (at best), finally approaching an asymptote of quadratically-increasing access to resources.
- beaconstudios 5y agoIn a true meritocracy, a fair system, people are rewarded for their contributions. Do you think Mark Zuckerberg is worth 70 billion because he works 2,000,000 times harder or more effectively than a caterer in facebook's cafeteria? Of course not. Exploitation is when everybody is allocated a fixed wage and incremental raises, and only a tiny subset of the people involved in the company get to reap the rewards of everybody's hard work.
- rosndo 5y agoYou’re using the wrong measurements. “Working hard” is meaningless, it’s about your output.
- beaconstudios 5y agoYes, to be clear I don't mean working hard as in exerting effort - I mean getting results for the business.
- klyrs 5y agoIf the cafeteria worker saves 500 highly-paid employees 30 minutes a day, how do we measure their output in a way that supports a lower wage than the people they're providing meals for?
- xeromal 5y agoThe other part of the calculation is: How replaceable is the cafeteria worker? There's only one Facebook. Many have tried to supplant it and failed.
- klyrs 5y agoOkay, so it's not actually about outputs.
- xeromal 5y agoI'm not sure how you read that. Assuming you're in a capitalistic society: I'll rephrase. If 7 billion people can do your job at the drop of a hat, you're going to make the lowest wage. If 100 million people can, you'll make a little more. If 100 people can, you'll make the most.
- klyrs 5y ago> I'm not sure how you read that. I was responding to a statement made upthread: >...> “Working hard” is meaningless, it’s about your output. While I don't need your elementary explanation of how capitalism operates, it does appear that you agree with me. We aren't paid by how much value we provide to the company. We aren't paid by how much effort we provide to the company. We're paid according to the amount of leverage that a company has to exploit us.
- reese_john 5y ago> In a true meritocracy, a fair system, people are rewarded for their contributions. In your true and fair system, how much should a talented new grad software engineer, whose output to the company in his first year will be little (if not negative due to opportunity costs of mentoring by senior engineers) be paid ? Assuming that after some time, the new hire has the potential, although not guaranteed, to make substantial business impact.
- beaconstudios 5y agoLess than seniors, but a reasonable amount? As I said in another comment, I would suggest allocating wages democratically - that way people can negotiate between themselves to find an agreeable rate.
- rosndo 5y agoBecause of a poor understanding of basic economics. Many people mistakenly believe that this is a zero-sum game.
- wbsss4412 5y agoThe “Exploitation” part really depends upon how one defines the term. However, it’s deeply unequal by definition for one person to have that much wealth. To have that much wealth also implies that there is a broader need/demand for said wealth. 1 trillion dollars does not, in and of itself, imply a determined set of material goods. If one were to argue that your possession of said imposes nothing upon anyone else, as everyone in this hypothetical world already has everything they want/need, then that wealth would not be nominally valued at $1 trillion. Value implies demand and scarcity relative to said demand.