4 ms·

People start out to create something awesome. People continue when they have the motivation. When you hard cap them in any measurable way, they stop.

alkonaut 3y ago
This sounds like guesswork around peoples motivation. Not saying you are wrong, but I'm making the argument that this is a pretty big claim (people being motivated not by wealth or status or curiosity but by extreme wealth). I just don't buy this claim. I don't think it's been a motivation of anyone who has made (say) a billion dollars, to only make another billion. Perhaps be the biggest company or invent the greatest product or have more money than the other billionaire who is an asshat, but just the money itself. Never heard of that. Every billionaire since the dawn of time has written memoirs. They might be lying, but I doubt any of them said "After 150M I just felt I had to make another 500M". They all say "after making successful product A and being set for life, I really wanted to make thing B". I have not read all the billionaire memoirs, and I'm sure memoirs usually claim you were in it for the thrill or the curiosity. But still.
- Jensson 3y ago
  If you pay someone to do X, and then stop paying them they will stop doing X even if they enjoyed it. The same will be true for these leaders, you can't just take all their future wealth and expect them to continue, they will stop the instant they stop making money, just like any other person.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    > If you pay someone to do X, and then stop paying them they will stop doing X even if they enjoyed it That's because for 99.999% of people, being paid money has utility. So the payment provides some benefit for them. But for someone with $2B, my argument is precisely this: whatever it is that drove them to make $2B (inveting the best product, or whatever) is NOT what drives them to make the NEXT $1B. > you can't just take all their future wealth and expect them to continue > they will stop the instant they stop making money, just like any other person. You cabsolutely can, and they absoluteluy will not. That's the whole point again: assuming a high enough "cap", we are talking about people who will never not be extremely wealthy. Whether the cap is $100M; $1B or $10B can be argued, but the central point is that the utility of more wealth is diminishing. That's why me giving you $1B would make a massive difference, but then me giving you another $1B would make almost no difference to your lifestyle/happniess/whatever measure you choose.
devbent 3y ago
> When you hard cap them in any measurable way, they stop. No they don't. Satya has a much lower cap earning money at Microsoft then Bill or Balmer did. Does that make him a worse CEO? Does it mean he is less dedicated? Very few people who are competitive are competitive because of money. They want to be known as the best, have the most power, the most influence, run the largest company, their name the most number of history books. Money is a rough proxy for power, but, to give an example, pharmaceutical companies have an outsized influence in American politics versus how much their CEOs are worth. Heck for the vast majority of companies their leadership has 0% chance of becoming billionaires. Most industries are too low margin. That doesn't mean the leaders of those companies still don't want to win in their chosen market.

alkonaut 3y ago

This sounds like guesswork around peoples motivation. Not saying you are wrong, but I'm making the argument that this is a pretty big claim (people being motivated not by wealth or status or curiosity but by extreme wealth). I just don't buy this claim. I don't think it's been a motivation of anyone who has made (say) a billion dollars, to only make another billion. Perhaps be the biggest company or invent the greatest product or have more money than the other billionaire who is an asshat, but just the money itself. Never heard of that. Every billionaire since the dawn of time has written memoirs. They might be lying, but I doubt any of them said "After 150M I just felt I had to make another 500M". They all say "after making successful product A and being set for life, I really wanted to make thing B". I have not read all the billionaire memoirs, and I'm sure memoirs usually claim you were in it for the thrill or the curiosity. But still.

Jensson 3y ago
If you pay someone to do X, and then stop paying them they will stop doing X even if they enjoyed it. The same will be true for these leaders, you can't just take all their future wealth and expect them to continue, they will stop the instant they stop making money, just like any other person.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  > If you pay someone to do X, and then stop paying them they will stop doing X even if they enjoyed it That's because for 99.999% of people, being paid money has utility. So the payment provides some benefit for them. But for someone with $2B, my argument is precisely this: whatever it is that drove them to make $2B (inveting the best product, or whatever) is NOT what drives them to make the NEXT $1B. > you can't just take all their future wealth and expect them to continue > they will stop the instant they stop making money, just like any other person. You cabsolutely can, and they absoluteluy will not. That's the whole point again: assuming a high enough "cap", we are talking about people who will never not be extremely wealthy. Whether the cap is $100M; $1B or $10B can be argued, but the central point is that the utility of more wealth is diminishing. That's why me giving you $1B would make a massive difference, but then me giving you another $1B would make almost no difference to your lifestyle/happniess/whatever measure you choose.

devbent 3y ago

> When you hard cap them in any measurable way, they stop. No they don't. Satya has a much lower cap earning money at Microsoft then Bill or Balmer did. Does that make him a worse CEO? Does it mean he is less dedicated? Very few people who are competitive are competitive because of money. They want to be known as the best, have the most power, the most influence, run the largest company, their name the most number of history books. Money is a rough proxy for power, but, to give an example, pharmaceutical companies have an outsized influence in American politics versus how much their CEOs are worth. Heck for the vast majority of companies their leadership has 0% chance of becoming billionaires. Most industries are too low margin. That doesn't mean the leaders of those companies still don't want to win in their chosen market.