4 ms·

Zuckerberg made ~$10,000,000/hr last year (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9-170242251.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ma

Zuckerberg made ~$10,000,000/hr last year (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9-170242251.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9...) Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Or 640,000x the minimum wage?

BurningFrog 2y ago
Empirically, that is how much money people have voluntarily given him. He was clearly worth the money for those people.
qaq 2y ago
So when FB stock tanked and he lost a ton of money does it mean he was making minus whatever number of millions per hour. Maybe converting asset valuation to hourly earnings is not that great of an idea. Anyone can buy FB shares and get same upside Zuck gets.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Yes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to the point of dismissal to consider that he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the avererage person, particularly the average minimum-wage earner, does. That doesn't mean he has. But the number being four or five orders of magnitude doesn't strike me as damning.
- worik 2y ago
  > he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the ... the average minimum-wage earner, does. Golly. He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it? Non sequitur. A college student having a pet can be reasonable. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they like with it.
    - worik 2y ago
      I do not get your point.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Why does something being reasonable to have mean it’s okay to destroy it?
        worik 2y ago
        > Why does something being reasonable to have mean it’s okay to destroy it? Yes. That is my point
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Make the money = reasonable Destroy the world = unreasonable Nobody is saying the second but you. They are unrelated, hence the non sequitur.
        worik 2y ago
        > Destroy the world = unreasonable Burning tonnes of carbon in your private jet
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        How much carbon do you think is reasonable? Do you think it matters if they offset it?
        2y ago
- consteval 2y ago
  The key here is "changed the world". In a capitalist economy, there's no rule anywhere saying the change has to be good or productive. Often, the best way to make money is to do purposefully destructive things. For example, consider the Tobacco industry. While yes they did, and somewhat still do, make a lot of money, they did not create any value. They siphoned it - they exchanged the purchase of tobacco for the cost of healthcare. I'm speculating, but if you were calculating the communal cost, that is the profits of tobacco minus the healthcare costs, I'm positive it would be negative. Therefore, tobacco has a negative value onto the world, but it is profitable. The profit is a facade, that money is really stolen. This demostrates one of the core flaws with current economic systems - you can create profit without creating value. You can simply move money around and get some profit, and you can even destroy money and yet make money. Keep in mind Facebook gets it's profit via advertising. The money they make is due to manipulating people to spend their money on things they wouldn't otherwise buy. The analysis is difficult, and I'm not saying what they're doing is bad per se, but the actual value they create is certainly debatable. All that is to say, simply changing the world is a meaningless metric. Certainly, I can change the world for the worse, if I want, and profit in-between. In such a scenario not only am I not equivalent to a janitor, I actually create less value. While making orders of magnitude more money.
jdminhbg 2y ago
He's definitely 10,000x better at running a social media conglomerate than I am, if that's what you're asking.
kortilla 2y ago
He is not given an hourly salary like that. The figure is based on value appreciation of a company he owns a significant part of. If someone had 10,000 tons of gold, they would have made a similar “hourly wage” this last year. This has nothing to do with earning anything. It’s about value appreciation of an already held asset.

BurningFrog 2y ago

Empirically, that is how much money people have voluntarily given him. He was clearly worth the money for those people.

qaq 2y ago

So when FB stock tanked and he lost a ton of money does it mean he was making minus whatever number of millions per hour. Maybe converting asset valuation to hourly earnings is not that great of an idea. Anyone can buy FB shares and get same upside Zuck gets.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Yes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to the point of dismissal to consider that he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the avererage person, particularly the average minimum-wage earner, does. That doesn't mean he has. But the number being four or five orders of magnitude doesn't strike me as damning.

worik 2y ago
> he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the ... the average minimum-wage earner, does. Golly. He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it? Non sequitur. A college student having a pet can be reasonable. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they like with it.
  - worik 2y ago
    I do not get your point.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Why does something being reasonable to have mean it’s okay to destroy it?
      - worik 2y ago
        > Why does something being reasonable to have mean it’s okay to destroy it? Yes. That is my point
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Make the money = reasonable Destroy the world = unreasonable Nobody is saying the second but you. They are unrelated, hence the non sequitur.
        worik 2y ago
        > Destroy the world = unreasonable Burning tonnes of carbon in your private jet
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        How much carbon do you think is reasonable? Do you think it matters if they offset it?
        2y ago
consteval 2y ago
The key here is "changed the world". In a capitalist economy, there's no rule anywhere saying the change has to be good or productive. Often, the best way to make money is to do purposefully destructive things. For example, consider the Tobacco industry. While yes they did, and somewhat still do, make a lot of money, they did not create any value. They siphoned it - they exchanged the purchase of tobacco for the cost of healthcare. I'm speculating, but if you were calculating the communal cost, that is the profits of tobacco minus the healthcare costs, I'm positive it would be negative. Therefore, tobacco has a negative value onto the world, but it is profitable. The profit is a facade, that money is really stolen. This demostrates one of the core flaws with current economic systems - you can create profit without creating value. You can simply move money around and get some profit, and you can even destroy money and yet make money. Keep in mind Facebook gets it's profit via advertising. The money they make is due to manipulating people to spend their money on things they wouldn't otherwise buy. The analysis is difficult, and I'm not saying what they're doing is bad per se, but the actual value they create is certainly debatable. All that is to say, simply changing the world is a meaningless metric. Certainly, I can change the world for the worse, if I want, and profit in-between. In such a scenario not only am I not equivalent to a janitor, I actually create less value. While making orders of magnitude more money.

jdminhbg 2y ago

He's definitely 10,000x better at running a social media conglomerate than I am, if that's what you're asking.

kortilla 2y ago

He is not given an hourly salary like that. The figure is based on value appreciation of a company he owns a significant part of. If someone had 10,000 tons of gold, they would have made a similar “hourly wage” this last year. This has nothing to do with earning anything. It’s about value appreciation of an already held asset.