7 ms·

I think that's a simplistic view. Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. This value is exchanged for money, which all

I think that's a simplistic view. Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. This value is exchanged for money, which allows the rich to draw back this value as they see fit. Lets imagine that Steve Jobs, instead of getting paid for his iPhones, sold them in exchange for a person's time. The average hourly wage in USA is approximately $24, meaning an iPhone would retail for about 25 hours. You can choose not to buy an iPhone, in which case you are free, or you choose to draw this value offered by Steve Jobs, but then you'd owe him 25 hours of work. The exchange is still completely voluntary, and therefore can't constitute domination.

tveita 13y ago
There were more people than Steve Jobs involved in manufacturing the iPhone.
- flyinglizard 13y ago
  The same logic applies to each of them. It is assumed they chose to work for Apple, and that their salary reflects whatever value they bring the company.
  - c3o 13y ago
    That assumption is an oversimplification, concealing myriad dependencies, power/negotiating imbalances, information asymmetry, imperfect markets, lack of choice, restricted individual freedom, etc.
    - chatmasta 13y ago
      Yeah, down with feudalism! Employment is bad! /s
Artistry121 13y ago
And those involved in creating the iPhone (in countries with strong property laws) all entered into a trade agreement where they provided their time or skills in exchange for a certain amount of money. Bill Gates had to give 30 cents of every dollar he earned to the US government to avoid going to prison. That's domination - the threat of force if penance is not paid. Wal-mart never made anyone work for them. They simply have said we will pay $7.25 for someone's time with basic skills - if no one was willing to work at that wage they would up it. The value of unskilled labor is low.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Unions have another take on that subject. Wage slavery is a real thing. Its only 'free will' if there's another option available. In many early WalMart locations they placed the store optimally to starve out local small-town businesses. After a year or two they were literally the only game in town.
- notahacker 13y ago
  And everybody that wanted to distribute copies of Windows in the United States was forced to pay for a licence to avoid going to prison, by that same government that collected 30 cents of every dollar Bill Gates earned. Let's not pretend that private property isn't backed by force - necessary or otherwise - here. The average person has a lot less choice over whether to work for a living than Bill Gates has over whether to do business in the United States on its terms or not.
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  Just what we need, some more Objectivism. If the free market ensured that all people were given a wage that adequately reflected their value, the bottom 40% of earners would be getting more than 10% of the income. Bill Gates paid 30 cents of every dollar in exchange for access to an educated and healthy workforce, use of the interstates for shipping, use of the police and military for protection, and use of a contract law system. Microsoft then abused its wealth to "embrace, extend, extinguish;" which is sort of a perfect illustration of how consolidating lots of money gives totally unbalanced market advantages to a few entities.
  - marknutter 13y ago
    > Bill Gates paid 30 cents of every dollar in exchange for access to an educated and healthy workforce, use of the interstates for shipping, use of the police and military for protection, and use of a contract law system. You make it sound as though it's a willful transaction between two parties. Yes, taxes go to those things, but it's compulsory. If I don't like Microsoft I can choose not to buy their products. If I don't like the NSA or CIA torture tactics, I can't opt out of their services. BIG difference.
calibraxis 13y ago
Not true; there's a reason why we have police, military and (in the US) the world's biggest imprisonment rate. Let's reframe. Our economic system is capitalism. That means I can exclusively control (via state force) a region's natural resources (a "property" relation between me and everyone else in the universe). It also means that most people try to rent themselves out, giving themselves up to someone's command for half their waking lives, in what is called wage slavery. The more bargaining power the wealthy elites have, the less they have to pay their subordinates, and can impose worse working conditions. Another phenomenon is you can have a city with as many empty houses as homeless people... when property relations are extended to the virtual, unauthorized sharing/using ideas and computer bits are criminalized.
- flyinglizard 13y ago
  Among Forbes top 20 billionaires, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who's made his fortune from natural resources. A person who seeks value from society - value originating at the work of others - has to provide such value back. If all you can do is simple manual labor, you will need to provide quite a lot of it to purchase scarce items that have a high degree of inherent value (such as an iPhone).
  - akgerber 13y ago
    The Kochs' money is mostly from natural resource extraction. Most software businesses are pretty heavily premised on intellectual property rights.
wpietri 13y ago
> Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. Evidence? I think quite a lot of rich people are rich not because of an ability to create value, but an ability to extract cash. E.g., 95% of Wall Street's activity. And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value.
- run4_too 13y ago
  > 95% of Wall Street's activity. I think most people consider growth of their investments and savings "valuable". >And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value Irrelevant. Point is that the value has been created and thus so has their wealth.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    > I think most people consider growth of their investments and savings "valuable". The growth of investments mainly comes through the work of the people at the company invested in. There is little evidence that the people managing retail investments do more than add overhead. And managing retail investment is a pretty small part of what Wall Street does. > Irrelevant. Point is that the value has been created and thus so has their wealth. Entirely relevant. Those people didn't become rich because of their ability alone; it was ability plus luck. That means using wealth alone to imply virtue isn't very persuasive.
im3w1l 13y ago
I cannot choose that Apple not pay campaign contributions to senators. It is not the only thing money does, but it does buy zero-sum power.

tveita 13y ago

There were more people than Steve Jobs involved in manufacturing the iPhone.

flyinglizard 13y ago
The same logic applies to each of them. It is assumed they chose to work for Apple, and that their salary reflects whatever value they bring the company.
- c3o 13y ago
  That assumption is an oversimplification, concealing myriad dependencies, power/negotiating imbalances, information asymmetry, imperfect markets, lack of choice, restricted individual freedom, etc.
  - chatmasta 13y ago
    Yeah, down with feudalism! Employment is bad! /s

Artistry121 13y ago

And those involved in creating the iPhone (in countries with strong property laws) all entered into a trade agreement where they provided their time or skills in exchange for a certain amount of money. Bill Gates had to give 30 cents of every dollar he earned to the US government to avoid going to prison. That's domination - the threat of force if penance is not paid. Wal-mart never made anyone work for them. They simply have said we will pay $7.25 for someone's time with basic skills - if no one was willing to work at that wage they would up it. The value of unskilled labor is low.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Unions have another take on that subject. Wage slavery is a real thing. Its only 'free will' if there's another option available. In many early WalMart locations they placed the store optimally to starve out local small-town businesses. After a year or two they were literally the only game in town.
notahacker 13y ago
And everybody that wanted to distribute copies of Windows in the United States was forced to pay for a licence to avoid going to prison, by that same government that collected 30 cents of every dollar Bill Gates earned. Let's not pretend that private property isn't backed by force - necessary or otherwise - here. The average person has a lot less choice over whether to work for a living than Bill Gates has over whether to do business in the United States on its terms or not.
reginaldjcooper 13y ago
Just what we need, some more Objectivism. If the free market ensured that all people were given a wage that adequately reflected their value, the bottom 40% of earners would be getting more than 10% of the income. Bill Gates paid 30 cents of every dollar in exchange for access to an educated and healthy workforce, use of the interstates for shipping, use of the police and military for protection, and use of a contract law system. Microsoft then abused its wealth to "embrace, extend, extinguish;" which is sort of a perfect illustration of how consolidating lots of money gives totally unbalanced market advantages to a few entities.
- marknutter 13y ago
  > Bill Gates paid 30 cents of every dollar in exchange for access to an educated and healthy workforce, use of the interstates for shipping, use of the police and military for protection, and use of a contract law system. You make it sound as though it's a willful transaction between two parties. Yes, taxes go to those things, but it's compulsory. If I don't like Microsoft I can choose not to buy their products. If I don't like the NSA or CIA torture tactics, I can't opt out of their services. BIG difference.

calibraxis 13y ago

Not true; there's a reason why we have police, military and (in the US) the world's biggest imprisonment rate. Let's reframe. Our economic system is capitalism. That means I can exclusively control (via state force) a region's natural resources (a "property" relation between me and everyone else in the universe). It also means that most people try to rent themselves out, giving themselves up to someone's command for half their waking lives, in what is called wage slavery. The more bargaining power the wealthy elites have, the less they have to pay their subordinates, and can impose worse working conditions. Another phenomenon is you can have a city with as many empty houses as homeless people... when property relations are extended to the virtual, unauthorized sharing/using ideas and computer bits are criminalized.

flyinglizard 13y ago
Among Forbes top 20 billionaires, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who's made his fortune from natural resources. A person who seeks value from society - value originating at the work of others - has to provide such value back. If all you can do is simple manual labor, you will need to provide quite a lot of it to purchase scarce items that have a high degree of inherent value (such as an iPhone).
- akgerber 13y ago
  The Kochs' money is mostly from natural resource extraction. Most software businesses are pretty heavily premised on intellectual property rights.

wpietri 13y ago

> Most rich people became rich because they provided a particular value to society. Evidence? I think quite a lot of rich people are rich not because of an ability to create value, but an ability to extract cash. E.g., 95% of Wall Street's activity. And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value.

run4_too 13y ago
> 95% of Wall Street's activity. I think most people consider growth of their investments and savings "valuable". >And even those in the value-creating category often attribute much of their wealth to right-place, right-time luck rather than an unusually high ability to create value Irrelevant. Point is that the value has been created and thus so has their wealth.
- wpietri 13y ago
  > I think most people consider growth of their investments and savings "valuable". The growth of investments mainly comes through the work of the people at the company invested in. There is little evidence that the people managing retail investments do more than add overhead. And managing retail investment is a pretty small part of what Wall Street does. > Irrelevant. Point is that the value has been created and thus so has their wealth. Entirely relevant. Those people didn't become rich because of their ability alone; it was ability plus luck. That means using wealth alone to imply virtue isn't very persuasive.

im3w1l 13y ago

I cannot choose that Apple not pay campaign contributions to senators. It is not the only thing money does, but it does buy zero-sum power.