4 ms·

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

by 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'?
  - jimmytidey 13y ago
    What I'm advocating is not that a committee that determines the value of software, but that government does take an interest when a likely monopoly starts reporting really usually enormous profits. > Bear in mind that if he hadn't created Windows... An alternative vision is one where a plurality to vendors are in a competitive market where standards allow OSes to interoperate. In such a market, the Windows product would not have been nearly so lucrative. >He's not keeping it under the mattress I understand that money circulates, but clearly it's benefits mainly accrue to the owner of the money. If it really did flow around benefiting everyone as you suggest we could just give all the money to one person and it would make no difference. There would be no profit motive at all if money really worked like this. >Finally he turned over the bulk of it to charity I think that's extremely wise and very generous of him. I also think that it should tell you something about how he feels about his fortune. However, I don't really want to live a world where individuals can become so unreasonably wealthy, and then we cross our fingers and hope they give most of it away. Just like we don't want to live in a world where tax contributions are voluntary. Ultimately for me there would only be sufficient inequality to persuade everyone to contribute as much as they can. That means paying some more to some very talented people to persuade them to work hard. Some people might end up 10 times richer than others, perhaps more, but no one has to be motivated by being paid 1000 times average salary.

by mh_yam 13y ago

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'?
- jimmytidey 13y ago
  What I'm advocating is not that a committee that determines the value of software, but that government does take an interest when a likely monopoly starts reporting really usually enormous profits. > Bear in mind that if he hadn't created Windows... An alternative vision is one where a plurality to vendors are in a competitive market where standards allow OSes to interoperate. In such a market, the Windows product would not have been nearly so lucrative. >He's not keeping it under the mattress I understand that money circulates, but clearly it's benefits mainly accrue to the owner of the money. If it really did flow around benefiting everyone as you suggest we could just give all the money to one person and it would make no difference. There would be no profit motive at all if money really worked like this. >Finally he turned over the bulk of it to charity I think that's extremely wise and very generous of him. I also think that it should tell you something about how he feels about his fortune. However, I don't really want to live a world where individuals can become so unreasonably wealthy, and then we cross our fingers and hope they give most of it away. Just like we don't want to live in a world where tax contributions are voluntary. Ultimately for me there would only be sufficient inequality to persuade everyone to contribute as much as they can. That means paying some more to some very talented people to persuade them to work hard. Some people might end up 10 times richer than others, perhaps more, but no one has to be motivated by being paid 1000 times average salary.