4 ms·

I wonder how many of the products and services of the top 0.01% he used in creating that article. My bet: he used MS Word on a Mac, using Google at the very lea

by rebelde 13y ago

I wonder how many of the products and services of the top 0.01% he used in creating that article. My bet: he used MS Word on a Mac, using Google at the very least. His next article could be about how the products of the 0.01% people have enhanced his life.

jiggy2011 13y ago
The article is about household incomes, not corporations.
- nilkn 13y ago
  Not that I agree with his point, but corporations are run and owned by people who often derive immense incomes from the endeavor. These people are disproportionately represented in the 1%.
- rebelde 13y ago
  I see that I'm getting down-voted. Sorry. I thought there was a link between those corporations and some people in the 0.01%.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jimmytidey 13y ago
It doesn't immediately follow from the fact that 0.01% people have made fantastic contributions that they should have disproportionately so much more money than the average person. It seems intuitive (but not logically certain) that the person who has made the greatest contribution to the world should be the richest. But by how much isn't really clear. What would happen if Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and had $50m, instead of billions. All the incentives scale. I don't think he'd have said 'screw this, I'm not making Word for less than $2 bn'. Sure, inequality is a fair way to reward hard work and brilliance, but what level? Looking at it another way, sure Bill Gates is a fantastically insightful and driven guy with great business acumen. Is he 100,000 times better than the average person though? Because he's earned 100,000 more than the average American. Warren Buffett makes the point that if he was born in Bangladesh he would probably be as poor as he was when he was born. Circumstances matter. I realize you don't say it explicitly, but the implication of what your comment is that they is some kind of cosmic justice that made Larry Page or Steve Jobs billionaires. There isn't. The right level of remuneration is a moral question, not a feature of the natural order. If you really think these people deserve these huge concentrations of wealth, why not more? How amazing could Windows have been if we'd just paid Bill Gates another $50 billion?
- mh_yam 13y ago
  I tend to believe that people are paid commensurate to the degree of value they create. Bill Gates, in my opinion, has created much more than 100,000 times the value of what an average American creates. That doesn't mean he is a better human being, just that he has contributed far, far more.
  - jimmytidey 13y ago
    Do you really think Bill Gates created equivalent value to 100,000 Americans? Bear in mind that if he hadn't created Windows, something similar would have taken its place - just as likely something better. I've never seen a discussion of Microsoft that said its achievements are due to engineering genius. Definitely they must have had a great production line for software, but the reason Microsoft is Microsoft is that it secured itself a monopoly. That isn't adding any value. But even if Bill Gates did add 100,000 times more value than the average American, it doesn't logically follow that he must be paid 100,000 times more. You might easily argue (I would) that the last million you pay to him doesn't make any difference at all to his happiness or motivation, and it could be much better spent else where.
    - johngalt 13y ago
      > Do you really think Bill Gates created equivalent value to 100,000 Americans? No. Not equivalent, in fact he created vastly more value than 100,000 Americans. Probably on the order of millions. > Bear in mind that if he hadn't created Windows, something similar would have taken its place - just as likely something better. How does this prove your point? If something better were available then there would be someone else rich that doesn't deserve it right? What do you envision here? A world where thousands of engineers mobilize to build software who's value will be determined later by committee? > The reason Microsoft is Microsoft is that it secured itself a monopoly. That isn't adding any value. For 10 years MS was dominant. Now the cracks are showing. MS has made plenty of engineering strides, and has some of the best executed backwards compatibility of any OS ecosystem. Again it hasn't captured even a tenth of the value it created. > But even if Bill Gates did add 100,000 times more value than the average American, it doesn't logically follow that he must be paid 100,000 times more. The more value generated by an endeavor, the more people will be motivated to follow. Could you imagine the sorry state of software if it was only a $100million/year industry? Everyone along the chain benefited. Not just MS's customers, but also their shareholders and employees. BGates got rich by the unanimous agreement of all the parties involved. Show me any alternative arrangement that could possibly be better? > You might easily argue (I would) that the last million you pay to him doesn't make any difference at all to his happiness or motivation, and it could be much better spent else where. He's not keeping it under his mattress. Money by itself does nothing. Like most rich people he immediately looked for other possible investment opportunities. Finally he turned over the bulk of it to direct charity (including that last million). Where could this have gone 'better'?
isleyaardvark 13y ago
Or about the various illegal antitrust practices all those companies have been found guilty of.

by rebelde 13y ago

jiggy2011 13y ago

The article is about household incomes, not corporations.

nilkn 13y ago
Not that I agree with his point, but corporations are run and owned by people who often derive immense incomes from the endeavor. These people are disproportionately represented in the 1%.
rebelde 13y ago
I see that I'm getting down-voted. Sorry. I thought there was a link between those corporations and some people in the 0.01%.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jimmytidey 13y ago

It doesn't immediately follow from the fact that 0.01% people have made fantastic contributions that they should have disproportionately so much more money than the average person. It seems intuitive (but not logically certain) that the person who has made the greatest contribution to the world should be the richest. But by how much isn't really clear. What would happen if Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and had $50m, instead of billions. All the incentives scale. I don't think he'd have said 'screw this, I'm not making Word for less than $2 bn'. Sure, inequality is a fair way to reward hard work and brilliance, but what level? Looking at it another way, sure Bill Gates is a fantastically insightful and driven guy with great business acumen. Is he 100,000 times better than the average person though? Because he's earned 100,000 more than the average American. Warren Buffett makes the point that if he was born in Bangladesh he would probably be as poor as he was when he was born. Circumstances matter. I realize you don't say it explicitly, but the implication of what your comment is that they is some kind of cosmic justice that made Larry Page or Steve Jobs billionaires. There isn't. The right level of remuneration is a moral question, not a feature of the natural order. If you really think these people deserve these huge concentrations of wealth, why not more? How amazing could Windows have been if we'd just paid Bill Gates another $50 billion?

mh_yam 13y ago
I tend to believe that people are paid commensurate to the degree of value they create. Bill Gates, in my opinion, has created much more than 100,000 times the value of what an average American creates. That doesn't mean he is a better human being, just that he has contributed far, far more.
- jimmytidey 13y ago
  Do you really think Bill Gates created equivalent value to 100,000 Americans? Bear in mind that if he hadn't created Windows, something similar would have taken its place - just as likely something better. I've never seen a discussion of Microsoft that said its achievements are due to engineering genius. Definitely they must have had a great production line for software, but the reason Microsoft is Microsoft is that it secured itself a monopoly. That isn't adding any value. But even if Bill Gates did add 100,000 times more value than the average American, it doesn't logically follow that he must be paid 100,000 times more. You might easily argue (I would) that the last million you pay to him doesn't make any difference at all to his happiness or motivation, and it could be much better spent else where.
  - johngalt 13y ago
    > Do you really think Bill Gates created equivalent value to 100,000 Americans? No. Not equivalent, in fact he created vastly more value than 100,000 Americans. Probably on the order of millions. > Bear in mind that if he hadn't created Windows, something similar would have taken its place - just as likely something better. How does this prove your point? If something better were available then there would be someone else rich that doesn't deserve it right? What do you envision here? A world where thousands of engineers mobilize to build software who's value will be determined later by committee? > The reason Microsoft is Microsoft is that it secured itself a monopoly. That isn't adding any value. For 10 years MS was dominant. Now the cracks are showing. MS has made plenty of engineering strides, and has some of the best executed backwards compatibility of any OS ecosystem. Again it hasn't captured even a tenth of the value it created. > But even if Bill Gates did add 100,000 times more value than the average American, it doesn't logically follow that he must be paid 100,000 times more. The more value generated by an endeavor, the more people will be motivated to follow. Could you imagine the sorry state of software if it was only a $100million/year industry? Everyone along the chain benefited. Not just MS's customers, but also their shareholders and employees. BGates got rich by the unanimous agreement of all the parties involved. Show me any alternative arrangement that could possibly be better? > You might easily argue (I would) that the last million you pay to him doesn't make any difference at all to his happiness or motivation, and it could be much better spent else where. He's not keeping it under his mattress. Money by itself does nothing. Like most rich people he immediately looked for other possible investment opportunities. Finally he turned over the bulk of it to direct charity (including that last million). Where could this have gone 'better'?

isleyaardvark 13y ago

Or about the various illegal antitrust practices all those companies have been found guilty of.