4 ms·

On the other hand, 150k is an astronomical sum for most people on the planet—and no one is being forced into accepting that as a market rate, or even living in

On the other hand, 150k is an astronomical sum for most people on the planet—and no one is being forced into accepting that as a market rate, or even living in a high-rent city, particularly post-COVID. I still don’t understand this idea that labor supposedly has some sort of intrinsic value. The value is derived from the labor being done in the context of a system created by someone else. As others have said, if you want to reap the full value of your labor, you’re free to go it alone.

green_man_lives 3y ago
> The value is derived from the labor being done in the context of a system created by someone else. When property ownership is indefinite and transferrable between generations, then capital accumulation becomes about whoever did it first. Yes there is occasional disruption, but a guy like Micheal Bloomberg did the labor 40 years ago and has had people working for him ever since. I think the idea is that we ALL stand on the shoulders of giants, and rather than holding all of the gains ourselves, they should be spread so as to give other people the opportunity to make something of themselves.
- prottog 3y ago
  > When property ownership is indefinite and transferrable between generations, then capital accumulation becomes about whoever did it first. If this is true, the richest people in this country should be named Washington or Jefferson, or perhaps more recently, Carnegie or Vanderbilt. Instead, we have the likes of Bezos or Musk, the latter of whom wasn't even born here. Bloomberg was born to a bookkeeper, hardly the stuff of generational wealth. Empirical evidence suggests that it's actually pretty hard to remain at the top of the leaderboard across many generations. I agree with the idea that we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but I dispute the picture you paint that the wealthy are "holding all of the gains [themselves]". Salaries get paid, taxes get paid, new ecosystems are made upon which future wealth can be built. There is no compelling evidence that makes me believe that more redistribution on top of what we already have (which is already quite a bit, contrary to popular belief that the US is a low-taxes-on-the-rich, low-social-benefit nation) would result in better outcomes for the median person.
  - green_man_lives 3y ago
    > Empirical evidence suggests that it's actually pretty hard to remain at the top of the leaderboard across many generations. I attempted to address this when I said: > Yes there is occasional disruption Also Vanderbilt and Carnegie existed during a time of much higher taxation, and also Carnegie gave away most of his wealth. It's also not hard to find examples of "old money". They don't have nearly as much as a Bezos or a Musk, but still more than the average person could ever hope to earn. Finally, I hate to attribute systemic patterns to the actions of individuals, but I think it's more so that rich kids without the same grit as their hard-scrap capitalist parents end up squandering their wealth. Even after his insane corruption, Trump's returns on his dad's money are paltry compared to buying the S&P 500, or even bonds for that matter. I would attribute the dissipation of familial wealth more to hubris and infighting than the system being hostile to generational wealth transfer. In addition, our current economic system, "shareholder capitalism" is about 40 years old. Under this paradigm it may be much easier to hold on to power. We don't know for sure, but regardless of the inter-generational aspect, think about how Bill Gates hasn't written a line of code in 40 years. To try and quantify it, think about Bill Gates' total contribution to MSFT as a percentage. Say time multiplied by talent. When there are 10 employees with the same skill level, he contributes 10% and maybe he owns 1% of the company. Seems pretty generous. At 100 engineers he is now just doing CEO duties, but his total contribution averages out to about 2% and still owns 1%. After 40 years and thousands of employees his ownership is still 1%, while his contributions are like 0.00001% of the total contribution to MSFT. This is what I mean by it being about "whoever did it first". Someone with a higher lifetime contribution to the company can be making less simply because Bill was there first. This is the nature of property ownership. You can defend it or not, but there is clearly a pattern of inequality that develops because of compounding growth's relationship with time. If that ends up harming your system somehow you need to address it. I don't think that pointing out the nature of it should be controversial. It's literally basic math. > There is no compelling evidence that makes me believe that more redistribution on top of what we already have Then you aren't looking hard enough.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      This is interesting. What might be some ways to put governers on that? Maybe you get to keep whatever money you make while producing, but do not get to collect a tax on all future earnings of other people? That would imply no such thing as owning part of a company. But then a moral equivalent would probably just pop up in it's place. Instead of owning shares, investors become mini lenders collecting interest on their loans.
BobbyJo 3y ago
I mostly agree with this sentiment, but I think it ignores some of the wealth feedback loops that exist, and the leverage they afford businesses over employees. Our society is filled with information assymetry, and therefore power assymetry. Offsetting that asymmetry with things that aren't necessarily "fair" may be required to make things more fair as a whole.
falcolas 3y ago
> 150k is an astronomical sum for most people on the planet This assertion (regardless of the dollar value) bugs me, because it never considers the cost of living. Sure, if I lived in Vietnam, $150k would make me a relative millionaire. But I don't live in (for example) Vietnam. A vast majority of people working a job that pays $150k don't live in a similar place either.
escapedmoose 3y ago
You present only the two options to offer labor to 1) an organization in which you’re not compensated in proportion to your output, vs 2) a solo practice where you’re forced to bear the burden of scaling/resource/etc costs on your own. You’re ignoring option 3) where you offer your labor to a collective organization of which you are granted proportional ownership as a condition of employment and can participate in setting the rules of your own compensation and expense burden democratically. In option 3 the system benefits from every member’s labor contributions, AND every member benefits from the “context of a system created by someone else”

green_man_lives 3y ago

> The value is derived from the labor being done in the context of a system created by someone else. When property ownership is indefinite and transferrable between generations, then capital accumulation becomes about whoever did it first. Yes there is occasional disruption, but a guy like Micheal Bloomberg did the labor 40 years ago and has had people working for him ever since. I think the idea is that we ALL stand on the shoulders of giants, and rather than holding all of the gains ourselves, they should be spread so as to give other people the opportunity to make something of themselves.

prottog 3y ago
> When property ownership is indefinite and transferrable between generations, then capital accumulation becomes about whoever did it first. If this is true, the richest people in this country should be named Washington or Jefferson, or perhaps more recently, Carnegie or Vanderbilt. Instead, we have the likes of Bezos or Musk, the latter of whom wasn't even born here. Bloomberg was born to a bookkeeper, hardly the stuff of generational wealth. Empirical evidence suggests that it's actually pretty hard to remain at the top of the leaderboard across many generations. I agree with the idea that we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but I dispute the picture you paint that the wealthy are "holding all of the gains [themselves]". Salaries get paid, taxes get paid, new ecosystems are made upon which future wealth can be built. There is no compelling evidence that makes me believe that more redistribution on top of what we already have (which is already quite a bit, contrary to popular belief that the US is a low-taxes-on-the-rich, low-social-benefit nation) would result in better outcomes for the median person.
- green_man_lives 3y ago
  > Empirical evidence suggests that it's actually pretty hard to remain at the top of the leaderboard across many generations. I attempted to address this when I said: > Yes there is occasional disruption Also Vanderbilt and Carnegie existed during a time of much higher taxation, and also Carnegie gave away most of his wealth. It's also not hard to find examples of "old money". They don't have nearly as much as a Bezos or a Musk, but still more than the average person could ever hope to earn. Finally, I hate to attribute systemic patterns to the actions of individuals, but I think it's more so that rich kids without the same grit as their hard-scrap capitalist parents end up squandering their wealth. Even after his insane corruption, Trump's returns on his dad's money are paltry compared to buying the S&P 500, or even bonds for that matter. I would attribute the dissipation of familial wealth more to hubris and infighting than the system being hostile to generational wealth transfer. In addition, our current economic system, "shareholder capitalism" is about 40 years old. Under this paradigm it may be much easier to hold on to power. We don't know for sure, but regardless of the inter-generational aspect, think about how Bill Gates hasn't written a line of code in 40 years. To try and quantify it, think about Bill Gates' total contribution to MSFT as a percentage. Say time multiplied by talent. When there are 10 employees with the same skill level, he contributes 10% and maybe he owns 1% of the company. Seems pretty generous. At 100 engineers he is now just doing CEO duties, but his total contribution averages out to about 2% and still owns 1%. After 40 years and thousands of employees his ownership is still 1%, while his contributions are like 0.00001% of the total contribution to MSFT. This is what I mean by it being about "whoever did it first". Someone with a higher lifetime contribution to the company can be making less simply because Bill was there first. This is the nature of property ownership. You can defend it or not, but there is clearly a pattern of inequality that develops because of compounding growth's relationship with time. If that ends up harming your system somehow you need to address it. I don't think that pointing out the nature of it should be controversial. It's literally basic math. > There is no compelling evidence that makes me believe that more redistribution on top of what we already have Then you aren't looking hard enough.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    This is interesting. What might be some ways to put governers on that? Maybe you get to keep whatever money you make while producing, but do not get to collect a tax on all future earnings of other people? That would imply no such thing as owning part of a company. But then a moral equivalent would probably just pop up in it's place. Instead of owning shares, investors become mini lenders collecting interest on their loans.

BobbyJo 3y ago

I mostly agree with this sentiment, but I think it ignores some of the wealth feedback loops that exist, and the leverage they afford businesses over employees. Our society is filled with information assymetry, and therefore power assymetry. Offsetting that asymmetry with things that aren't necessarily "fair" may be required to make things more fair as a whole.

falcolas 3y ago

> 150k is an astronomical sum for most people on the planet This assertion (regardless of the dollar value) bugs me, because it never considers the cost of living. Sure, if I lived in Vietnam, $150k would make me a relative millionaire. But I don't live in (for example) Vietnam. A vast majority of people working a job that pays $150k don't live in a similar place either.

escapedmoose 3y ago

You present only the two options to offer labor to 1) an organization in which you’re not compensated in proportion to your output, vs 2) a solo practice where you’re forced to bear the burden of scaling/resource/etc costs on your own. You’re ignoring option 3) where you offer your labor to a collective organization of which you are granted proportional ownership as a condition of employment and can participate in setting the rules of your own compensation and expense burden democratically. In option 3 the system benefits from every member’s labor contributions, AND every member benefits from the “context of a system created by someone else”