5 ms·

There's nothing wrong with people collectively giving someone money.

by daenz 4y ago

unethical_ban 4y ago
With the context of what wealth inequality is doing to society and what political power raw money brings to people, I posit there is a line where it is wrong.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Bezos is probably the most unpopular person in Washington. We don't have a president Bloomberg. I submit to you that you are vastly overestimating the amount of political power having money automatically brings someone.
  - ihumanable 4y ago
    Power and office are two different things. Someone can exercise a great deal of power in advancing or killing legislation while never holding office and allowing all the office holders to call them names on TV. What matters is what policies are enacted. Here's a nice video on the topic that summarizes a Princeton study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
  - samhw 4y ago
    Powerful people have long weaponised self-deprecation as a means of letting off steam and blunting more serious attacks. (That theme is elaborated very well in the LRB here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking....) Michael Bloomberg is actually a great example, in how his campaign relied so heavily on irony and self-deprecation to defuse the (anticipated) discomfort around electing an old white billionaire.
- daenz 4y ago
  If 1 million people want to give 1 person 10 dollars, and your response is "we should control how those 1 million spend their 10 dollars", and not "we should prevent politicians from selling their influence", then you're hurting the people you want to help.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
uncomputation 4y ago
If Armstrong was the sole CTO, COO, CPO, CLO, designer, marketer, advertiser, programmer, and researcher, then yes, all money should go to him. But Coinbase was made what it is by many people, the majority of which have nothing close to wealth Armstrong enjoys. Why shouldn’t those people be given money? I agree there should be some incentive for entrepreneurs and the people who make “the business side” work, but doesn’t the degree of difference between Armstrong and his average employee strike you as unfair?
- daenz 4y ago
  >Why shouldn’t those people be given money? They were given money: their compensation that they agreed and accepted as being fair payment for their labor.
  - uncomputation 4y ago
    Let’s be conservative and say Armstrong has just a net worth of the house he bought: 150,000,000. If the average employee’s salary is 150,000, Armstrong makes 1,000 times more than them. Does this seem fair? Does he deserve higher compensation for his entrepreneurial skills? Absolutely. But 1,000? It’s hard for us to imagine the scale of 1,000 times greater than something but it seems excessive (and remember, this is being extremely conservative). Does he really work 1,000 times harder than the average employee? These aren’t rhetorical questions by the way. I genuinely want to know, what do you think?
    - daenz 4y ago
      You ignored my response to your post completely and re-iterated the exact same point, so I don't think you are listening or actually care to hear what I think, because if you did, you would know that I already answered you.
    - Dma54rhs 4y ago
      Programmers wages in America are for the vast majority of the world obscene as well. It depends where do you draw the line, American programmer is most likely the 1% for the world.

There's nothing wrong with people collectively giving someone money.

by daenz 4y ago

There's nothing wrong with people collectively giving someone money.

With the context of what wealth inequality is doing to society and what political power raw money brings to people, I posit there is a line where it is wrong.

missedthecue 4y ago
Bezos is probably the most unpopular person in Washington. We don't have a president Bloomberg. I submit to you that you are vastly overestimating the amount of political power having money automatically brings someone.
- ihumanable 4y ago
  Power and office are two different things. Someone can exercise a great deal of power in advancing or killing legislation while never holding office and allowing all the office holders to call them names on TV. What matters is what policies are enacted. Here's a nice video on the topic that summarizes a Princeton study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
- samhw 4y ago
  Powerful people have long weaponised self-deprecation as a means of letting off steam and blunting more serious attacks. (That theme is elaborated very well in the LRB here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking-giggling-into-the-sea https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n14/jonathan-coe/sinking....) Michael Bloomberg is actually a great example, in how his campaign relied so heavily on irony and self-deprecation to defuse the (anticipated) discomfort around electing an old white billionaire.
daenz 4y ago
If 1 million people want to give 1 person 10 dollars, and your response is "we should control how those 1 million spend their 10 dollars", and not "we should prevent politicians from selling their influence", then you're hurting the people you want to help.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

uncomputation 4y ago

If Armstrong was the sole CTO, COO, CPO, CLO, designer, marketer, advertiser, programmer, and researcher, then yes, all money should go to him. But Coinbase was made what it is by many people, the majority of which have nothing close to wealth Armstrong enjoys. Why shouldn’t those people be given money? I agree there should be some incentive for entrepreneurs and the people who make “the business side” work, but doesn’t the degree of difference between Armstrong and his average employee strike you as unfair?

daenz 4y ago
>Why shouldn’t those people be given money? They were given money: their compensation that they agreed and accepted as being fair payment for their labor.
- uncomputation 4y ago
  Let’s be conservative and say Armstrong has just a net worth of the house he bought: 150,000,000. If the average employee’s salary is 150,000, Armstrong makes 1,000 times more than them. Does this seem fair? Does he deserve higher compensation for his entrepreneurial skills? Absolutely. But 1,000? It’s hard for us to imagine the scale of 1,000 times greater than something but it seems excessive (and remember, this is being extremely conservative). Does he really work 1,000 times harder than the average employee? These aren’t rhetorical questions by the way. I genuinely want to know, what do you think?
  - daenz 4y ago
    You ignored my response to your post completely and re-iterated the exact same point, so I don't think you are listening or actually care to hear what I think, because if you did, you would know that I already answered you.
  - Dma54rhs 4y ago
    Programmers wages in America are for the vast majority of the world obscene as well. It depends where do you draw the line, American programmer is most likely the 1% for the world.