3 ms·

I'm sincerely happy for their success, and it an important feature of the US that some sharp, driven people are able to create a substantial fortune for themsel

I'm sincerely happy for their success, and it an important feature of the US that some sharp, driven people are able to create a substantial fortune for themselves. In some ways this is in direct conflict with working-class people being able to assemble a stable life where they can depend on being able to work diligently and have some stability in life. I think the total wealth of society could be greater if we adjusted some laws and the tax code to make it more possible for working class people to have a real shot at a stable life through diligent, hard, work.

pdonis 3y ago
> make it more possible for working class people to have a real shot at a stable life through diligent, hard, work The problem with this is that, ultimately, if you view yourself as "working class", as opposed to being an entrepreneur, then your shot at a stable life through diligent, hard work is not dependent on the laws and the tax code, it's dependent on the overall business environment and what kinds of employers you can find. Which means, on luck. If you are a lucky working class person, you will be able to find an employer who (a) recognizes your diligence and hard work, (b) is able to manage the business risks of the company so that they can afford to reward you accordingly, and (c) does in fact reward you as you deserve, i.e., is willing to share the benefits of the business with you even though you're not an owner, you're just an employee. I'm not saying there are no such employers out there; but my description should make it evident that they will be rare. Far too rare for all diligent, hard-working working class people to benefit from them. The diligent, hard-working working class people who aren't lucky enough to find one of those employers will have to live with whatever they can get, which will range all the way from "okay but not great" down to "sweatshop". The only way to escape this crapshoot is to be an entrepreneur--i.e., to own at least a piece of whatever business your livelihood depends on (and in practice it has to be a large enough piece that your voice will carry weight in business decisions). In other words, dealing with unavoidable business risks due to the fact that the world is always changing and businesses have to adjust, is something that, all things considered, you are better off not outsourcing to an employer.
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > The only way to escape this crapshoot is to be an entrepreneur--i.e., to own at least a piece of whatever business your livelihood depends on this may be true nowadays, but can everyone follow this advice? what happens when everyone is an entrepreneur? who will work the actual jobs?
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > what happens when everyone is an entrepreneur? who will work the actual jobs? If everyone is an entrepreneur, then all of the production is being done by entrepreneurs. That means the "actual jobs" are now being done by entrepreneurs, i.e., people who own their own businesses (or a significant share in them) and produce as owners instead of employees. There is nothing at all impossible about such an economy, although of course it would be a loss for many entities in our current economy (such as large corporations who owe their profits to rent seeking, buying favorable regulations from the government, artificial monopolies, etc. instead of to actual productive advantage).
    - andrekandre 3y ago
      > That means the "actual jobs" are now being done by entrepreneurs, i.e., people who own their own businesses (or a significant share in them) and produce as owners instead of employees. is this basically something like co-ops?
      - pdonis 3y ago
        In cases where whatever is being produced inherently cannot be produced without a very large number of people acting in coordination (for example, designing and building cars in a large factory), yes, the mode of production I am describing would basically be a co-op. The problem at that scale, of course, is that each individual owner's share is now so small that they lose confidence that their input will have significant weight in business decisions. It's not impossible to operate co-ops effectively at this scale, but observation suggests it's very difficult, which is why such co-ops are rare compared to conventional corporations for operations at this scale. But there is no reason why all production, or even a majority of production, needs to be of a kind that must be produced that way. Most entrepreneurs own small businesses, and most businesses in existence are small businesses, and in some sectors of the economy (for example, many kinds of services), small businesses actually do most of the production, and much of the production is indeed done by the owners, not by employees they hire. So in an economy where everyone was an entrepreneur, much if not most of the production would be done that way, much as it is now, only more so.

pdonis 3y ago

> make it more possible for working class people to have a real shot at a stable life through diligent, hard, work The problem with this is that, ultimately, if you view yourself as "working class", as opposed to being an entrepreneur, then your shot at a stable life through diligent, hard work is not dependent on the laws and the tax code, it's dependent on the overall business environment and what kinds of employers you can find. Which means, on luck. If you are a lucky working class person, you will be able to find an employer who (a) recognizes your diligence and hard work, (b) is able to manage the business risks of the company so that they can afford to reward you accordingly, and (c) does in fact reward you as you deserve, i.e., is willing to share the benefits of the business with you even though you're not an owner, you're just an employee. I'm not saying there are no such employers out there; but my description should make it evident that they will be rare. Far too rare for all diligent, hard-working working class people to benefit from them. The diligent, hard-working working class people who aren't lucky enough to find one of those employers will have to live with whatever they can get, which will range all the way from "okay but not great" down to "sweatshop". The only way to escape this crapshoot is to be an entrepreneur--i.e., to own at least a piece of whatever business your livelihood depends on (and in practice it has to be a large enough piece that your voice will carry weight in business decisions). In other words, dealing with unavoidable business risks due to the fact that the world is always changing and businesses have to adjust, is something that, all things considered, you are better off not outsourcing to an employer.

andrekandre 3y ago
> The only way to escape this crapshoot is to be an entrepreneur--i.e., to own at least a piece of whatever business your livelihood depends on this may be true nowadays, but can everyone follow this advice? what happens when everyone is an entrepreneur? who will work the actual jobs?
- pdonis 3y ago
  > what happens when everyone is an entrepreneur? who will work the actual jobs? If everyone is an entrepreneur, then all of the production is being done by entrepreneurs. That means the "actual jobs" are now being done by entrepreneurs, i.e., people who own their own businesses (or a significant share in them) and produce as owners instead of employees. There is nothing at all impossible about such an economy, although of course it would be a loss for many entities in our current economy (such as large corporations who owe their profits to rent seeking, buying favorable regulations from the government, artificial monopolies, etc. instead of to actual productive advantage).
  - andrekandre 3y ago
    > That means the "actual jobs" are now being done by entrepreneurs, i.e., people who own their own businesses (or a significant share in them) and produce as owners instead of employees. is this basically something like co-ops?
    - pdonis 3y ago
      In cases where whatever is being produced inherently cannot be produced without a very large number of people acting in coordination (for example, designing and building cars in a large factory), yes, the mode of production I am describing would basically be a co-op. The problem at that scale, of course, is that each individual owner's share is now so small that they lose confidence that their input will have significant weight in business decisions. It's not impossible to operate co-ops effectively at this scale, but observation suggests it's very difficult, which is why such co-ops are rare compared to conventional corporations for operations at this scale. But there is no reason why all production, or even a majority of production, needs to be of a kind that must be produced that way. Most entrepreneurs own small businesses, and most businesses in existence are small businesses, and in some sectors of the economy (for example, many kinds of services), small businesses actually do most of the production, and much of the production is indeed done by the owners, not by employees they hire. So in an economy where everyone was an entrepreneur, much if not most of the production would be done that way, much as it is now, only more so.