3 ms·

What freaking garbage is this, it’s all about equity. If a company hires 10 people and pays them 100/hour then all the value created by these people will belon

What freaking garbage is this, it’s all about equity. If a company hires 10 people and pays them 100/hour then all the value created by these people will belong to the company - 10x100 hour that the company paid. If the value happens to be 3 million then the shareholders just made 3 million - (10x100). Also this scales for the shareholders pretty much forever, capital is a limitless resource when compared to hours in a day. There is no need to make a freaking model out of something so obvious. If you want to get rich you need to get in on the equity game somehow (invest, start a company, FAANG RSU-s, does not matter) Working more hours or getting paid more per hour does not scale to rich levels

cudgy 2y ago
Your missing the point of the article. It acknowledges that the ratios are absurd. The question is why and how did the people that have this capital that you describe as belonging to investors get the capital in the first place.
- foobarkey 2y ago
  Maybe somewhat about this concrete article, but not in the general life I see around me, people are working way too hard for that 100/hr piece of cake, maybe even hoping they can get a raise and get 110/hr piece of cake. Meanwhile shareholders get 3 million cake :) The game is rigged worse than a casino :)
Joker_vD 2y ago
> There is no need to make a freaking model out of something so obvious. But consider that almost the entire first half of the Das Kapital's first volume is precisely a (very tedious) formulation of precisely this: "workers produce more than they get to consume, that's how non-workers can be sustained". And you can find there the criticism of other contemporary economic theorists who apparently disagreed with that ("nah, the workers spend, like, 8 hours of work just to make up for the materials that's consumed in the manufacturing process, so the actual profit is made only when they work the 9th and later hours so if the work day would be restricted to 8 hours then all the factories will go bust; would someone please think of the entrepreneurs!").
JimmyBuckets 2y ago
I think it should be interesting to you that this article caused you an emotional reaction. Your language is emotionally charged and it's made you miss the point that @cudgy has given you
- foobarkey 2y ago
  Nothing wrong woth adding some spice but yeah bit emotionally charged in any case I would like to point out that both the article and parent miss the point, while it is interesting to model who wins the lottery, the real problem is that 99% of the people are not even playing or trying to :)

cudgy 2y ago

Your missing the point of the article. It acknowledges that the ratios are absurd. The question is why and how did the people that have this capital that you describe as belonging to investors get the capital in the first place.

foobarkey 2y ago
Maybe somewhat about this concrete article, but not in the general life I see around me, people are working way too hard for that 100/hr piece of cake, maybe even hoping they can get a raise and get 110/hr piece of cake. Meanwhile shareholders get 3 million cake :) The game is rigged worse than a casino :)

Joker_vD 2y ago

> There is no need to make a freaking model out of something so obvious. But consider that almost the entire first half of the Das Kapital's first volume is precisely a (very tedious) formulation of precisely this: "workers produce more than they get to consume, that's how non-workers can be sustained". And you can find there the criticism of other contemporary economic theorists who apparently disagreed with that ("nah, the workers spend, like, 8 hours of work just to make up for the materials that's consumed in the manufacturing process, so the actual profit is made only when they work the 9th and later hours so if the work day would be restricted to 8 hours then all the factories will go bust; would someone please think of the entrepreneurs!").

JimmyBuckets 2y ago

I think it should be interesting to you that this article caused you an emotional reaction. Your language is emotionally charged and it's made you miss the point that @cudgy has given you

foobarkey 2y ago
Nothing wrong woth adding some spice but yeah bit emotionally charged in any case I would like to point out that both the article and parent miss the point, while it is interesting to model who wins the lottery, the real problem is that 99% of the people are not even playing or trying to :)