5 ms·

It’s not that difficult to become a billionaire. If you can collect $1 dollar from a billion people, you’ll be a billionaire. If you increase that to $10, you o

It’s not that difficult to become a billionaire. If you can collect $1 dollar from a billion people, you’ll be a billionaire. If you increase that to $10, you only need 100 million people, roughly a third of the United States. What you need is some kind of platform on which you could collect those dollars. In recent history the internet has become a powerful platform and that is why we have so many more billionaires. But what has not changed is our sensitivity to good deeds. If you’re a billionaire, giving all your wealth away is not really going to be appreciated much more than doing some highly visible good deeds that give smaller amounts of wealth away. So why do it? There is diminishing returns for good deeds. You’re better off staying a billionaire until you die, after which your wealth will be distributed anyway.

dizlexic 1y ago
Tbh i don't see a problem with this take other than people don't like it.
- deadbabe 1y ago
  People just vastly overestimate the power of money at scale. There is more power and inspiration in doing highly visible good deeds that people will see and feel good about than just cutting checks to large groups of people. It takes a billionaire to truly understand this.
latexr 1y ago
> If you’re a billionaire, giving all your wealth away is not really going to be appreciated much more than doing some highly visible good deeds that give smaller amounts of wealth away. So why do it? You could do it for the intrinsic satisfaction of being a decent human and creating a better world. Could probably end or avoid a few wars, too. You’d certainly go into the annals of history is you eradicated poverty in whole areas of the world (which you could easily do, as a billionaire). > It’s not that difficult to become a billionaire. Please show us. Then give all your money away and see how that worked out. Don’t knock it until you try it. If you later regret it, that’s OK, shouldn’t be that difficult to become a billionaire again.
- dizlexic 1y ago
  The idea that giving all your money away makes you a decent human and or it would create a better world is just flawed logic.
  - dizlexic 1y ago
    and this is downvoted why? giving all your money away in no way makes you a decent human or guarantees a better world. It's flawed logic. A platitude.
    - some_guy_nobel 1y ago
      Please stray from the meta "why am I downvoted!". It's low-effort, reddit-esque commentary that only serves yourself. You can edit your other comment. You're being downvoted because you're not responding to the comment in earnest. The comment says, "You could do it for the intrinsic satisfaction of being a decent human and creating a better world." Obviously, that implies good intention. Your contrarian take sidesteps this for no real reason: you present no argument other than being contrarian for contrarian-sake. Maybe try explaning why you think the logic is flawed.
      - deadbabe 1y ago
        His logic is not flawed to anyone who thinks about it: 1. You have to be a shitty human being to become a billionaire. 2. If you give away all your money, you’re not a shitty human being. 3. But if you’re not a shitty human being, how could you have become a billionaire in the first place? ??? There is no way to win with these people.
        latexr 1y ago
        You're arguing against points no one made. No one in this immediate thread, at least. No one here said you have to be shitty to be a billionaire, or that giving money away stops you from being shitty. Please don’t straw man. Engage with the arguments in earnest, with what the person said, not what you imagine they said.
dominicrose 1y ago
Getting $1 from a single person is already a challenge. Automating that is incredibly hard and clearly not something you can do alone, and if you don't do it alone then everybody gets a cut, including your bank, IRS, etc.
dotnet00 1y ago
If you're a billionaire, you don't feel the need to win the unaffected public's affections. You just do good because you have the resources to do it and can derive satisfaction from the people who are benefiting. You don't get to being ruthless enough to become a billionaire if you're dependent on what uninvolved strangers think of you. If you were, you'd be giving it all away well before piling up enough to become a billionaire.

dizlexic 1y ago

Tbh i don't see a problem with this take other than people don't like it.

deadbabe 1y ago
People just vastly overestimate the power of money at scale. There is more power and inspiration in doing highly visible good deeds that people will see and feel good about than just cutting checks to large groups of people. It takes a billionaire to truly understand this.

latexr 1y ago

> If you’re a billionaire, giving all your wealth away is not really going to be appreciated much more than doing some highly visible good deeds that give smaller amounts of wealth away. So why do it? You could do it for the intrinsic satisfaction of being a decent human and creating a better world. Could probably end or avoid a few wars, too. You’d certainly go into the annals of history is you eradicated poverty in whole areas of the world (which you could easily do, as a billionaire). > It’s not that difficult to become a billionaire. Please show us. Then give all your money away and see how that worked out. Don’t knock it until you try it. If you later regret it, that’s OK, shouldn’t be that difficult to become a billionaire again.

dizlexic 1y ago
The idea that giving all your money away makes you a decent human and or it would create a better world is just flawed logic.
- dizlexic 1y ago
  and this is downvoted why? giving all your money away in no way makes you a decent human or guarantees a better world. It's flawed logic. A platitude.
  - some_guy_nobel 1y ago
    Please stray from the meta "why am I downvoted!". It's low-effort, reddit-esque commentary that only serves yourself. You can edit your other comment. You're being downvoted because you're not responding to the comment in earnest. The comment says, "You could do it for the intrinsic satisfaction of being a decent human and creating a better world." Obviously, that implies good intention. Your contrarian take sidesteps this for no real reason: you present no argument other than being contrarian for contrarian-sake. Maybe try explaning why you think the logic is flawed.
    - deadbabe 1y ago
      His logic is not flawed to anyone who thinks about it: 1. You have to be a shitty human being to become a billionaire. 2. If you give away all your money, you’re not a shitty human being. 3. But if you’re not a shitty human being, how could you have become a billionaire in the first place? ??? There is no way to win with these people.
      - latexr 1y ago
        You're arguing against points no one made. No one in this immediate thread, at least. No one here said you have to be shitty to be a billionaire, or that giving money away stops you from being shitty. Please don’t straw man. Engage with the arguments in earnest, with what the person said, not what you imagine they said.

dominicrose 1y ago

Getting $1 from a single person is already a challenge. Automating that is incredibly hard and clearly not something you can do alone, and if you don't do it alone then everybody gets a cut, including your bank, IRS, etc.

dotnet00 1y ago

If you're a billionaire, you don't feel the need to win the unaffected public's affections. You just do good because you have the resources to do it and can derive satisfaction from the people who are benefiting. You don't get to being ruthless enough to become a billionaire if you're dependent on what uninvolved strangers think of you. If you were, you'd be giving it all away well before piling up enough to become a billionaire.