6 ms·

100M in net worth would motivate me, but one of the differences between me and a talented CEO is that I don't already have 100M in net worth. Gates had well ove

100M in net worth would motivate me, but one of the differences between me and a talented CEO is that I don't already have 100M in net worth. Gates had well over 100M when Microsoft went public in 1986, Bezos had more than a billion when Amazon went public in 1998, Musk made 150M on Ebay's Paypal acquisition in 2002. We may disagree on whether we're better off that they continued working, but I don't think they would have done so as a public service after they capped out lifetime income.

Apocryphon 4y ago
So you're saying all of those figures were more motivated by money rather than building something of value. Do you truly think they were more motivated by money than by glory, a competitive spirit, a desire for legacy?
- nwienert 4y ago
  Also just something interesting to do. And it’s fun to lead, and get press, and make hard decisions.
- massysett 4y ago
  Money is how they measure glory, its how the competition is scored, and it’s how they buy legacy. There are people who are not motivated by money, but they’re not billionaires. They’re professors, priests, politicians, etc. Pope Francis has achieved more glory and fame than nearly any billionaire CEO. Yes, the billions is hugely motivational to those who have them.
  - MisterMower 4y ago
  - selcuka 4y ago
    > Money is how they measure glory, its how the competition is scored They can still own the trillion dollar company for glory and fame; they just can't cash out. Also I don't think there should be a cap, but the tax rate should go up indefinitely, causing diminishing returns for higher earners. I pay a higher percentage of tax if my employer pays me more, but I still prefer higher paying jobs.
theptip 4y ago
> I don't think they would have done so as a public service after they capped out lifetime income. That is definitely the big question. Given that Gates is busy donating most of his cash to charity, there are counterexamples. But even biting the bullet and accepting the premise, it’s not immediately obvious that losing all of the work from current billionaires would be a bad trade in exchange for substantially reduced inequality. My counterpoint is that most billionaires don’t seem to be continuing to work hard primarily to get another billion. It’s more for the fun/fulfillment and status. If they can still have fun and status even without controlling as much wealth they will probably still go for it.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > Given that Gates is busy donating most of his cash to charity, there are counterexamples. A charity of your choice vs being taxed more. If you had a few billion dollars to spare, which option would you choose?
  - ceres 4y ago
    Why should so few individuals have outsized social, political and economic power over the whole country? Why not tax them more and let elected officials representatives decide how best to spend the money?
    - grapehut 4y ago
      Probably because most of us have first hand experience with how well our elected officials are with spending our money
    - vasco 4y ago
      Because they created an outsized amount of value and jobs for society. You can say those would have happened anyway but that's a pretend world we never saw working yet.
      - ceres 4y ago
UncleMeat 4y ago
Zuckerberg has more money than God at this point, yet he still shows up every day. Is he really motivated by tacking on another bunch of billions? I suspect not.
- midhhhthrow 4y ago
  And with all the sh*t he has to deal with, The fact that he still shows up Is pretty remarkable

Apocryphon 4y ago

So you're saying all of those figures were more motivated by money rather than building something of value. Do you truly think they were more motivated by money than by glory, a competitive spirit, a desire for legacy?

nwienert 4y ago
Also just something interesting to do. And it’s fun to lead, and get press, and make hard decisions.
massysett 4y ago
Money is how they measure glory, its how the competition is scored, and it’s how they buy legacy. There are people who are not motivated by money, but they’re not billionaires. They’re professors, priests, politicians, etc. Pope Francis has achieved more glory and fame than nearly any billionaire CEO. Yes, the billions is hugely motivational to those who have them.
- MisterMower 4y ago
- selcuka 4y ago
  > Money is how they measure glory, its how the competition is scored They can still own the trillion dollar company for glory and fame; they just can't cash out. Also I don't think there should be a cap, but the tax rate should go up indefinitely, causing diminishing returns for higher earners. I pay a higher percentage of tax if my employer pays me more, but I still prefer higher paying jobs.

theptip 4y ago

> I don't think they would have done so as a public service after they capped out lifetime income. That is definitely the big question. Given that Gates is busy donating most of his cash to charity, there are counterexamples. But even biting the bullet and accepting the premise, it’s not immediately obvious that losing all of the work from current billionaires would be a bad trade in exchange for substantially reduced inequality. My counterpoint is that most billionaires don’t seem to be continuing to work hard primarily to get another billion. It’s more for the fun/fulfillment and status. If they can still have fun and status even without controlling as much wealth they will probably still go for it.

credit_guy 4y ago
> Given that Gates is busy donating most of his cash to charity, there are counterexamples. A charity of your choice vs being taxed more. If you had a few billion dollars to spare, which option would you choose?
- ceres 4y ago
  Why should so few individuals have outsized social, political and economic power over the whole country? Why not tax them more and let elected officials representatives decide how best to spend the money?
  - grapehut 4y ago
    Probably because most of us have first hand experience with how well our elected officials are with spending our money
  - vasco 4y ago
    Because they created an outsized amount of value and jobs for society. You can say those would have happened anyway but that's a pretend world we never saw working yet.
    - ceres 4y ago

UncleMeat 4y ago

Zuckerberg has more money than God at this point, yet he still shows up every day. Is he really motivated by tacking on another bunch of billions? I suspect not.

midhhhthrow 4y ago
And with all the sh*t he has to deal with, The fact that he still shows up Is pretty remarkable