6 ms·

The tech oligarchy has been here for years

19 points by leotravis10 2y ago

leotravis10 2y ago
Archival link: https://archive.ph/bE0c9 https://archive.ph/bE0c9
no_wizard 2y ago
Everyone who visits this forum would do well to remember the narrative of tech being “the last meritocracy” is at the very least completely dead now, if it was ever true to begin with. Founders have been so thoroughly mythologized that everyone is becoming blind to the reality of the industry as a whole, and that is a few large corporations are increasingly holding all the keys. Yet you have the people most affected by this decrying others who push against this in society, the workplace or in politics as if it’s an affront to do so. We are losing our innovation spirit as we allow such rot to set in. We should have known better, we did nothing to prove we did
jmclnx 2y ago
>Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead… It is just the oligarchy as the above mentions. The take over startedwith Reagan, then Citizens United ruling locked in their power. It is already here.
drewcoo 2y ago
> Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy Well, an oligarchy is a form of government, so . . . Time for a new speech-writer! I guess a new President will take care of that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xnx 2y ago
Can anyone recommend a convincing argument one what benefit there is to society of letting anyone accumulate/control a billion dollars? Is it kind of like the lottery where we need a few outrages winners to convince all the rubes to play?
- jacobgorm 2y ago
  The value that gets created might not have been created otherwise. The key is taxation, which is where the US and other countries have failed since the Reagan years.
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  It seems the only convincing argument anyone needs is that some day they will have a billion dollars and they would like to keep it.
- kcplate 2y ago
  My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we can’t set an upper limit.
  - antisthenes 2y ago
    > My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? That's not an actual argument though. It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving. > If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      We simply increase the number until 95-99% of population agree with it.
amai 2y ago
"It is considered democratic, for example, that state offices are filled by lot, and oligarchic that they are filled by election" — Aristotle, Politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
disqard 2y ago
Either this thread is full of "temporarily embarrassed billionaires", or there's a lot of arguing in bad faith going on. One human having a billion is like somebody weighing 1000 pounds. It's hella unhealthy for them (does anyone here imagine that Elon Musk is happy?) and it's catastrophically bad for the rest of society to have to deal with these people throwing their weight around. Where do we "draw the line"? I dunno, could we consider something like 200 million? Judging by some of the responses here, probably not.

19 points by leotravis10 2y ago

Archival link: https://archive.ph/bE0c9 https://archive.ph/bE0c9

Everyone who visits this forum would do well to remember the narrative of tech being “the last meritocracy” is at the very least completely dead now, if it was ever true to begin with. Founders have been so thoroughly mythologized that everyone is becoming blind to the reality of the industry as a whole, and that is a few large corporations are increasingly holding all the keys. Yet you have the people most affected by this decrying others who push against this in society, the workplace or in politics as if it’s an affront to do so. We are losing our innovation spirit as we allow such rot to set in. We should have known better, we did nothing to prove we did

jmclnx 2y ago

>Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead… It is just the oligarchy as the above mentions. The take over startedwith Reagan, then Citizens United ruling locked in their power. It is already here.

drewcoo 2y ago

> Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy Well, an oligarchy is a form of government, so . . . Time for a new speech-writer! I guess a new President will take care of that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

xnx 2y ago

Can anyone recommend a convincing argument one what benefit there is to society of letting anyone accumulate/control a billion dollars? Is it kind of like the lottery where we need a few outrages winners to convince all the rubes to play?

jacobgorm 2y ago
The value that gets created might not have been created otherwise. The key is taxation, which is where the US and other countries have failed since the Reagan years.
nickthegreek 2y ago
It seems the only convincing argument anyone needs is that some day they will have a billion dollars and they would like to keep it.
kcplate 2y ago
My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? The upper amount can’t really be agreed upon so we can’t set an upper limit.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  > My argument for pro billionaire is “Who gets to set the amount that is too much? That's not an actual argument though. It's your gut justification that no one should be able to set the amount posed as a question. You are presuming that just because there's no perfect agreement on an arbitrary number, then the problem somehow becomes not worth solving. > If the global GDP per person is less than $14k, why set at a billion, why not much less? How about $100k? Good questions. We can have a discussion about it, but that doesn't mean there's never going to be a number that we can agree upon.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    We simply increase the number until 95-99% of population agree with it.

amai 2y ago

"It is considered democratic, for example, that state offices are filled by lot, and oligarchic that they are filled by election" — Aristotle, Politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

disqard 2y ago

Either this thread is full of "temporarily embarrassed billionaires", or there's a lot of arguing in bad faith going on. One human having a billion is like somebody weighing 1000 pounds. It's hella unhealthy for them (does anyone here imagine that Elon Musk is happy?) and it's catastrophically bad for the rest of society to have to deal with these people throwing their weight around. Where do we "draw the line"? I dunno, could we consider something like 200 million? Judging by some of the responses here, probably not.