3 ms·

What make you assume that this is the case or that the data I linked to would answer that question?

by esarbe 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago
> What make you assume that this is the case or that the data I linked to would answer that question? I assumed you posted the link and said "look at the data" as it had some data with some bearing on what I was saying.
- esarbe 3y ago
  Ah, I think I got your question now; you mean to ask; "What makes you think that all that wealth is not rightly earned by the rich people. They are producing value, that's why they are rich." At least that my interpretation, let me know if I got that wrong. Sure, let's have a look at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwar https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwar... We can assume that industrious, ingenious people with the will to to greatness come from all parts of society equally. If productivity and ingenuity were the driver of wealth, we would conclude that throughout all economic layers of society, we have a constant percentage of people that are getting richer, i.e. that they get to earn more value than their parents. If we look at the date we see that this was roughly the case for the 1940ies cohort. With each next cohort, people from lower-income households not only have a lower chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder, but also a reduced share of total wealth. At the same time you see agglutination of wealth in the upper levels of society. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-earners-hold-more-wealth-than-the-u-s-middle-class https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-ear... Go figure.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    That still doesn't mean that people who are rich didn't get there by providing value to others. E.g. Bill Gates made software that almost every business in the world chose to pay him for. Social mobility stats aren't relevant to that question.
    - esarbe 3y ago
      Yeah, from shoestring to millionaire, right? Not so much. Bill Gates was born into an already very wealthy family. He enjoyed an top notch education, had access to promising early technology and - maybe most important, had connections through his friends and family that he could leverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#IBM_partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#IBM_partnership His most important deal he didn't make because he creating a unique value, but because of - some might argue - somewhat shady business practices, where he ripped off the value created by someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS#Creation_of_PC_DOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS#Creation_of_PC_DOS He made money by arbitration of value. That is not the same as creating that value. I doubt that there was anything uniquely special of value created by Bill Gates that justifies him having access to a million times the resources that an everyday citizen has. I don't doubt that he's a hard and dedicated worker. But I've already made the argument that this is not the factor deciding whether you get rich or not. Luck, preparation, luck, endurance, luck, risk-taking and luck are. By being rich, you can make sure you have the preparation, the endurance and the capacity for risk-taking. You still need luck.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        You seem to have got stranded down the wrong path. I'm not talking about "Yeah, from shoestring to millionaire, right?" It doesn't matter if someone was a millionaire and took a risk and made loads of money, or whether Bill Gates worked hard or not. When they made that new money, they did so by creating value, because people paid them for their product or service. When it comes to Bill Gates, Microsoft made and supplied the software that has computerised almost all businesses worldwide and home computers for decades. That is obvious, and enormous, value. That's all I've been saying. Does it make sense?
        esarbe 3y ago
        It makes sense in the conclusion. I don't think I agree with the premises. None of the products that Bill Gates made himself were uniquely brilliant. He did not make money by himself writing software that provided unique value. He made a very good Basic compiler, but that's not where his wealth comes from. His breakthrough deal with was with IBM, where he arbitrated between IBM and Tim Patterson - without either party knowing of the other. That's not value he created, that's value he arbitrated. Now, you might say, but that is the value he provided, the arbitration. But that is not value created by any means and it's not necessarily a function of ingenuity or hard work or perseverance, but it's a function of well-connectedness, of knowing-the-right-people, of moving-in-the-right circles. And that again are areas where being wealthy and connected, going to the right schools, speaking the right lingo and knowing the right people will give you an invaluable advantage.

What make you assume that this is the case or that the data I linked to would answer that question?

by esarbe 3y ago

What make you assume that this is the case or that the data I linked to would answer that question?

> What make you assume that this is the case or that the data I linked to would answer that question? I assumed you posted the link and said "look at the data" as it had some data with some bearing on what I was saying.

esarbe 3y ago
Ah, I think I got your question now; you mean to ask; "What makes you think that all that wealth is not rightly earned by the rich people. They are producing value, that's why they are rich." At least that my interpretation, let me know if I got that wrong. Sure, let's have a look at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwar https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/social-mobility-upwar... We can assume that industrious, ingenious people with the will to to greatness come from all parts of society equally. If productivity and ingenuity were the driver of wealth, we would conclude that throughout all economic layers of society, we have a constant percentage of people that are getting richer, i.e. that they get to earn more value than their parents. If we look at the date we see that this was roughly the case for the 1940ies cohort. With each next cohort, people from lower-income households not only have a lower chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder, but also a reduced share of total wealth. At the same time you see agglutination of wealth in the upper levels of society. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-earners-hold-more-wealth-than-the-u-s-middle-class https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-1-ear... Go figure.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  That still doesn't mean that people who are rich didn't get there by providing value to others. E.g. Bill Gates made software that almost every business in the world chose to pay him for. Social mobility stats aren't relevant to that question.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    Yeah, from shoestring to millionaire, right? Not so much. Bill Gates was born into an already very wealthy family. He enjoyed an top notch education, had access to promising early technology and - maybe most important, had connections through his friends and family that he could leverage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#IBM_partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#IBM_partnership His most important deal he didn't make because he creating a unique value, but because of - some might argue - somewhat shady business practices, where he ripped off the value created by someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS#Creation_of_PC_DOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS#Creation_of_PC_DOS He made money by arbitration of value. That is not the same as creating that value. I doubt that there was anything uniquely special of value created by Bill Gates that justifies him having access to a million times the resources that an everyday citizen has. I don't doubt that he's a hard and dedicated worker. But I've already made the argument that this is not the factor deciding whether you get rich or not. Luck, preparation, luck, endurance, luck, risk-taking and luck are. By being rich, you can make sure you have the preparation, the endurance and the capacity for risk-taking. You still need luck.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You seem to have got stranded down the wrong path. I'm not talking about "Yeah, from shoestring to millionaire, right?" It doesn't matter if someone was a millionaire and took a risk and made loads of money, or whether Bill Gates worked hard or not. When they made that new money, they did so by creating value, because people paid them for their product or service. When it comes to Bill Gates, Microsoft made and supplied the software that has computerised almost all businesses worldwide and home computers for decades. That is obvious, and enormous, value. That's all I've been saying. Does it make sense?
      - esarbe 3y ago
        It makes sense in the conclusion. I don't think I agree with the premises. None of the products that Bill Gates made himself were uniquely brilliant. He did not make money by himself writing software that provided unique value. He made a very good Basic compiler, but that's not where his wealth comes from. His breakthrough deal with was with IBM, where he arbitrated between IBM and Tim Patterson - without either party knowing of the other. That's not value he created, that's value he arbitrated. Now, you might say, but that is the value he provided, the arbitration. But that is not value created by any means and it's not necessarily a function of ingenuity or hard work or perseverance, but it's a function of well-connectedness, of knowing-the-right-people, of moving-in-the-right circles. And that again are areas where being wealthy and connected, going to the right schools, speaking the right lingo and knowing the right people will give you an invaluable advantage.