Right, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the point, PG doesn’t actually engage with it. He just says “compound growth + build something that people love”.
But the meat of the point is: if the economy is growing at 2.5%, how do you sustain 15% over 5 years?
Look, I’m a startup guy, I buy into the premise that it’s an intensely value-creating activity. But I think it’s self-defeating to pretend like the monopoly and regulatory arbitrage problems don’t exist.
I get that PG and his customers need to be able to cash out, but also, the monopoly rentiers make it more difficult for startups to compete by buying up competitors early and offering crazy salaries that make startups uncompetitive.
All that said, the subtext here is that PG is providing politicians with stories they can tell, nobody in this conversation is trying to describe reality in the most precise or honest way.
> if the economy is growing at 2.5%, how do you sustain 15% over 5 years?
US GDP is $31.82 trillion dollars per year. Taking the 2.5% growth rate, that's nearly $800 billion dollars per year in new GDP.
The economy very obviously does not progress as a bunch of soldiers marching in a straight line. Some firms will shrink 100%, some will growth 10,000%. This much is obvious by just looking around. But even if no businesses shrank, no wages were docked, nothing bad happened... even still there would be $800B in more GDP.
So if the economy is growing at $800B per year, it's extremely obvious how a company could even grow from $1M to $1B in revenue per year without doing anything shady... Just capture some of the new economic activity that cropped up this year!
And it's even easier when we're talking about an entrepreneur's net worth. Their net worth is going to be mostly holdings in company stock. The value of company stock is some multiple of the company's theoretical future financial earnings.
So if a company is making $1M revenue today, and growths to $5M revenue by the end of the year (15% MoM growth), at let's say a 30% EBITDA margin, they have made $1.5M EBITDA. And let's say that fast growth is rewarded at an extremely rich 50x EBITDA multiple. That company is now worth $75M. If this founder is lucky and owns 50% of their business, they now are "worth" $37.5M.
If they were only at $1M * .30 * 50 * 0.50 = $7.5M net worth at the beginning of the year, and then were at $37.5M at the end, their net worth increased by 500% in one year! And all they had to do was capture $4M / $8000M = 0.05% of the increase in GDP.
Like, none of this is either shady or complicated.
You should account for inflation.
Thanks for engaging with this in a quantitative way. I particularly appreciate the earnings/valuation accounting, this really helps anchor the discussion.
I agree you’ve demonstrated that there is enough economic growth to not contradict PG’s hypothetical numbers. But I think we should strive for a deeper understanding than “all they had to do was capture… 0.05% of the increase in GDP”.
Just as a counter-example, a Robber Baron could monopolize all the profits in the rail sector and run a drug mafia on the side, and it would show up the same in your numbers; “all they did was capture 5% of the increase in GDP”. In other words, like PG you don’t actually prove the point you’re arguing; you just provided a story that doesn’t contradict it. (Capturing the annual wealth creation of ~350m*0.05% ~= 175,000 people doesn’t seem on its face to be obviously fair or routine, rather it seems like a tail outlier worthy of further investigation.)
The way I would frame it is, what we actually need to do is look at the firm level metrics and figure out what is going on. (A founder becoming a billionaire typically means their company grew to the order of $10b - let’s look at the business practices of $10b companies or founders with confirmed liquidity valuations in our range.)
If you look at founders like Jobs, I think it’s pretty clear he made his first $b (via Pixar) just by making things people loved. Companies like Uber obviously relied to some extent on regulatory arbitrage, and you can debate the timing of e.g. Google founders’ shift to monopoly rent extraction, I would likely argue they got their $b “fairly”.
The second order question of course - would markets price your company at $10b if they didn’t think you had a future monopoly opportunity? Expectation vs current reality makes this all more complex.
But I think for PG’s purposes you can ignore the second order and just talk about successful, billionaires who built things that people loved.
The problem of course is that nobody likes billionaires these days (except politicians of course) and so it’s a much less marketable narrative. And there is the crux of the problem; this post is not an honest attempt to increase our understanding of the world, it’s a political slogan.
Agreed, and I think this is reasonable. There are a great many examples of people who amassed wealth in unsavory or illegal ways. And my sense is that almost nobody defends all forms of wealth acquisition as moral and good.
That said, I think there are a great many people who believe that all forms of wealth acquisition (above a certain scale) are fundamentally immoral. And that belief is held because they believe, "The only way you get a billion dollars is taking advantage of working people, not earning it."
So, my read is that PG's point is not to defend all billionaires. But instead, to debunk the incorrect folk-belief that all billionaires necessarily are exploitative.
Perhaps you realize this, but the way the economy grows 2.5% is through lots of entities growing faster than that.
Growth comes from innovation, and innovators get rewarded with faster growth as non-innovators decline.
No mention of Piketty or r>g?
Look, I know this is a tech forum and we don't claim to be good at the social sciences, but this is a central debate and r>g, the idea that the rate of return to capital tends to exceed economic growth over the course of history, is a major result from Piketty's Capital In The 21st Century that people interested in "grow the pie" vs "trickle down" really ought to be familiar with. Even if you disagree, you ought to be able to articulate why, and "the average includes winners and losers" ain't it.
"But life has improved, r>g couldn't have been true forever" -- last time the inequality bubble popped because of a great depression and two world wars. The capital was incinerated, metaphorically and literally. It's a cautionary tale and we should aspire to do better.
> It's a cautionary tale and we should aspire to do better.
Why is it a cautionary tale? Sounds like we should have a bunch of incinerations of capital, ideally let the capital mobilizers that are actually competent survive.
"Let's have more world wars" isn't a great thing to aim for.
I'm suggesting deflationary contractions, but okay. Note that deflationary contractions in 1930 sucked because we didn't have solid supply chains, modern agriculture, liquid asset markets turbocharged with rapid information interchange etc. Might be worth trying in the 20X0s
The populist blowbacks from that were a major cause of the second world war.
weimar republic created hyperinflation, in response to deflation, and so at best its a second order effect with a not so subtle intervening policy that was the primary target of the backlash
I thought it was monetizing fiscal deficits due to WW1 war reparations payable only in gold?
Yes, dnautics is confused. In the early 20s Germany hyperinflated to pay reparations, they subsequently became allergic to inflationary policy, and then when the deflationary wave of the Great Depression hit in the late 20s they were allergic to the correct policy response, so they let deflation bite, and a certain Austrian fellow rode that pain into power.
Eh, I'll bite.
I haven't read the source but for one, there wasn't really even a US dollar until 1935. When banks failed, and they did unlike now when they artificially don't, you lost everything. There was no FDIC. All of those mechanisms are artificial and serve to make the banking industry large and profitable.
Not to mention currency debasement, another aspect of the modern world that makes finance uniquely profitable and, really, white collar work existent in any major form at all. It's ingenious. Since capitalism is naturally deflationary, as competition removes all profit over the long term, let's interfere and make it so workers make less money every working day. Hence, in order to make even the same amount of money each year, one has to either rise in the hierarchy, or argue for raises, which is inherently risky.
Basically, before 1935, it was hard to accumulate that much wealth. It wasn't generally backed by any nation state guarantee. Real estate has always been a great store of wealth, but it has physical limitations. The world since 1935 is now a world of nation state wealth guarantees. The only reason this amount of wealth is allowed to occur, is because of it. We took a strange path since 2008, when the banks were not allowed to fail. Everything eventually comes to pass.
No.
I'm surprised someone who picked the name "engineeringwoke" has no love for FDR. He's the GOAT!
The largest bank in the US is #14 on the S&P by market cap. If the Federal Reserve is a conspiracy to make banks profitable, it is doing a poor job. More to the point: I challenge anyone who doesn't like the Fed and the compromise it represents (money printer exists, but is guarded from the politicians by a council of 12) to name their alternative. Hard money? Politicians can print? You picked "hard money." Let's go!
Everyone who learns about the Cantillon Pump thinks they would love to run it in reverse. This is because they don't understand that it does not run in reverse. It is not symmetrical. They underestimate the pain of a deflationary shock, where everyone (namely your employer) gets an incentive to not participate in the economy and then stops participating in the economy (namely by employing you). Rent and debt is still due, of course. This is the pain that inspired the USA to split from Britain (scrip/specie). This is the pain of the Great Depression -- you threw out that 1935 date like it was the culmination of a Bond bad guy plot, not the capitulation of a country tired of deflation. We even have the counterfactual: Germany, having just escaped the Weimar inflation, decided in 1929 to take the deflationary response to the Great Depression. It led them to a very dark place.
Returning to the USA: they weren't called "robber barons" because they failed to accumulate wealth. Capitalism does not guarantee competition (quite the opposite, strong property rights are the nexus of anticompetitive opportunity) which does not remove all profit over the long term, it squeezes it onto assets, which is where that unearned income we were talking about originates from. If you have ever heard or given a business pitch, attended a class in business school, or listened to a VC for 30 seconds you have heard some heinously anticompetitive scheme and their plan to leverage it for personal gain by turning it into an asset they own. Network effects, platform effects, two sided markets, returns to scale, etc etc etc. Usually they don't work, but when they do and you get a stock or a deed or a title to a money fountain (exploitation fountain, seen from the other side) you get to stack trillions while the competition spends decades trying to cross your capitalism-created and capitalism-guaranteed moat.
Yes, in recent times the money printer has been used to exacerbate inequality. But it isn't the cause of inequality -- certainly not if you look at what happened in the 1935: https://ceprdc.tumblr.com/post/87307310830/piketty-in-one-gr...
Turns out you can have an inflationary adjustment and unwind inequality and boost the economy at the same time, so long as you remember to tax the rich. FDR sends his regards!
You'd like Capital in the 21st Century.
> This is because they don't understand that it does not run in reverse. It is not symmetrical. They underestimate the pain of a deflationary shock, where everyone (namely your employer) gets an incentive to not participate in the economy and then stops participating in the economy (namely by employing you).
If you think of inflation as money supply growth, or growth relative to gold, the economy has barely grown since 1971 when Bretton Woods was ended. However, the economy did grow in gold terms in the period beforehand. Why would that be? Is your theory from a textbook truly applicable or just a way of enforcing the current economic norms that heavily benefit nation states? If you force all assets to go up, you bleed your asset holders via tax as well. They don't want people to believe in ideas that could break their hegemony.
> Capitalism does not guarantee competition (quite the opposite, strong property rights are the nexus of anticompetitive opportunity) which does not remove all profit over the long term
This is a different conversation, regulatory versus monetary. It also weakens your r > g business book pseudoscience argument. I studied economics and finance enough, I don't need some cheap armchair economist slag.
> tax the rich
Nice, if I didn't need any more proof that this is just another diatribe based on another faddish idea about how to fix the economy. Wait, did I say that earlier? Something about how ideas can be used to control the bounds of policy, the Overton window.
FDR's results speak for themselves. Reagan's results speak for themselves. We could benefit enormously from shifting the Overton window back to FDR.
You still haven't explained why we should expect hard money to fix America when hard money broke America in 1750 and America and Germany in 1929.
> Capitalism does not guarantee competition (quite the opposite, strong property rights are the nexus of anticompetitive opportunity) which does not remove all profit over the long term, it squeezes it onto assets, which is where that unearned income we were talking about originates from. If you have ever heard or given a business pitch, attended a class in business school, or listened to a VC for 30 seconds you have heard some heinously anticompetitive scheme and their plan to leverage it for personal gain by turning it into an asset they own. Network effects, platform effects, two sided markets, returns to scale, etc etc etc. Usually they don't work, but when they do and you get a stock or a deed or a title to a money fountain (exploitation fountain, seen from the other side) you get to stack trillions while the competition spends decades trying to cross your capitalism-created and capitalism-guaranteed moat.
I made this point many times a number of years back and gave up. It's incredible how an entire message board of HN that supposedly is extremely pro market competition, seems to entirely be unaware (or just collectively puts it's head in the sand) that the #1 strategy that most VC backed firms seem to target is "figure out out as quickly as possible how we can get out of having to compete with others". And they do so under the name of "a moat".
Building a moat is one of the most anti-market actions that can be taken. You hear commenters post non-stop about the ills of communism as it avoids market competition, but somehow every seems to just gloss over or ignore the fact that moats are designed to do the same thing and cause the same issue. Terrible allocation of capital.
[dead]
> Growth comes from innovation...
I suppose it depends on how broadly you define "innovation".
Lots of companies grow because of, among other things: regulatory capture, regulatory arbitrage, questionable use of other people's IP, offshoring, misclassification of employees/contractors, profit shifting and transfer pricing, subsidized predatory below-cost pricing, dark patterns, aggressive collection and monetization of user data, acqui-hires to stifle competition, implementing high-switching costs to create vendor lock-in, round-tripping, channel-stuffing, business models that intentionally externalize costs, outright fraud.
Bill Gates' wealth grew much more after he left Microsoft than while he was CEO. Was that wealth earned through innovation? No. He simply owned something that became more valuable as other people labored to innovate.
Institutional innovation continues to pay off after you leave. You will make more over time if you build a company with a moat, if you set up a farm team system so your company can continue to innovate, if you eschew cash grabs in favor of solid customer service. If you take away the incentive to set up a continuous wealth generator, you will see founders spend their last year as CEO looting the company instead.
It is factual that ownership continues to pay after you are no longer laboring.
My position is that this is not a good thing.
When I build something for myself, a main goal is for it to work without my constant input so I can do something else. This is especially important for people who are capable of creating institutions. What if Elon Musk was stuck babysitting PayPal, or would lose all the payout from Neuralink the second he wanted to move on?
Also, a large share of the value I add to society is attributable to the person who set up the institution I'm working in. I work hard and am friendly but without someone setting up an organization that employs programmers usefully, the most I can do for you is fix your Wifi. I would vote to keep paying the builders after they leave.
Why would Musk be stuck babysitting PayPal? He would have earned money while laboring there. He can choose to do something different if he wants to, just like anybody else with a job.
If the value of MSFT tanked after he was no longer managing it, people would have said he didn't do a good job setting up effective systems.
So what? He owned the stock, he gets to share in the gains.
If we believed that the only people who should be morally allowed to benefit from asset appreciation are the people who actively work for that company, the entire economy would collapse.
For example, every pension fund, endowment, retirement fund, etc. are all invested in financial assets that they had NO role in. All they do is own something that become more valuable as other people labor and innovate! Shall we cast them as evil capitalists?
I don’t find “we need billionaires because 401ks” to be a compelling argument. We can build a different system.
AOC’s criticism is that “own stock, share in gains” is not the same as earning money.
[dead]
If so many entities are declining, why shouldn't I expect that my entities will also decline? Why should I expect them to be the ones that go up?
You don't. This only explains what was asked: how any entities can go up by 15% if the average is 2.5%. How to be the one to do that is hard.
I would say it slightly differently: The average rate of growth comes from the average of the successful and unsuccessful innovators and non-innovators.
Growth does not ONLY come from innovation. It can come from bad actor or even simply non-innovaive strategies such as acquistition (which can lead to monopoly, as capital tends to amass in large centers / the hands of the few, per Marx). Other bad faith / anti-competitive / non-innovative strategies include regulatory capture, lobbying, doing illegal things (and hoping to not get caught / paying a slap-on-the-wrist fine that would be impossible for smaller companies), etc.
Even 15% for five years only doubles your original investment.
To get a billion from a million you need to do 15% for fifty years, and that ignores inflation. Or 25% for thirty-one years.
These numbers are ludicrous.
I think he's doing 15% every month, not every year. It's not an implausible growth rate for a unicorn startup; it is implausible to expect it.
He talks about 15% _per month_
It’s a good point, I should have compounded the 15% m/m to compare with 2.5% economy annual growth rate.
15% monthly
> These numbers are ludicrous.
They are also speculative, not real. They are based on the notion that the company would be worth that much based on projected cash flows, expenses, etc. If you actually tried to cash it all out at any point in time you could not get anything close to that because the very act of selling will lower the value by destroying confidence in the speculative valuations.
None of these SV billionares have billions in cash or cash equivalents. Maybe a few of the largest companies do.
That’s not really relevant. Billionaires still get the perks of being billionaires. Diversifying may take time and financial engineering but billionaires clearly get benefits and usage from their assets. How do you think Bill Gates spent billions on his projects? Billions CAN be spent.
Compound growth is also the exact thing that is being criticized here. Your wealth grows simply by virtue of ownership. No labor needs to be performed. When somebody says that you can't earn a billion dollars they are the same thing that PG is saying, he just doesn't think it is bad: the way to become a billionaire is to own things whose value rises over time. The issue is whether this can be meaningfully called "earning" it.
Are you doing something to create that value? If yes, then I think you are earning it. If you are simply an investor, then no, but we need investors to make the whole system work.
we only really “need” investors because of the structure of our economic system. we need humans to do stuff regardless of the system.
worth mentioning that our current system is setup by and for the people who own the stuff so its no surprise that we need them to make new stuff.
Using your own logic, if we need investors to make the whole thing work, then an investor playing their role has obviously earned their take. If they didn't exist, many things would simply never have been created.
I don't think you are the target audience. Here's the direct quote, does that apply to you:
"You're young, and usually young founders should make something that they themselves want. You don't have enough experience yet to know what other people need. But at the same time your own needs are uniquely valuable, because your needs predict future demand. You're the age when people start using new things. Whatever you and your friends start using now, everyone is going to be using in ten years. Since your intuitions about other people's needs are usually a crap signal, and your own needs are an especially valuable one, you should usually listen to the second signal; you should make something you and your friends want.
Making something you and your friends want doesn't mean you have to build a consumer product. Maybe you and your friends are molecular biologists, and there's something cool that could be done now to DNA that everyone else has overlooked. Maybe you and your friends are into drones. The idea doesn't have to have a wide appeal. It literally just has to appeal to you and your friends."
"Just do whatever, don't mind other people. You don't need to focus on consumers, you can always sell drones to the military."
If your drone can deliver pizza, it can also deliver bombs. The latter always has demand.
[dead]
> if the economy is growing at 2.5%, how do you sustain 15% over 5 years?
By growing better than the average?
How do you grow better than average?
By creating a product that people find valuable?
Yes, but the bigger picture is that what people find valuable and what is actually valuable diverge. Because what people find valuable is through the lens of their constraints: the regulatory structure of their country, the limitations of the human condition, inertia, the limited nature of time.
The most poignant example is tobacco. Tobacco is a net-negative product for the world. But many people find it very valuable, because it helps them with the stresses of their life and they have a biological dependency on nicotine. And so, it’s a multi billion dollar industry. But, for the world as a whole, it generates negative billions of dollars. Because of the health cost and the cost of lost work. If you did 10, 20 years early then that’s a lot of human productivity burned.
Of course, most products are not tobacco. But every product is tobacco a little bit, I think, in the sense that they merely move some money from externalities into the product. In that sense, it’s not all value creation, it’s value siphoning or moving.
Obviously externalities exist. I disagree with your tobacco take though. If someone knows about the health risks tobacco causes and still chooses to buy tobacco than the tobacco has created real value. Of course societal value can still be negative because of externalities, but externalities have to be external, a person making a decision you disagree with isnt an externality.
Im not going to disagree that externalities are everywhere though. The question is to what extent and if, after correcting for them, there are still products which create so much value they make their founders billionaires. I think the most obvious case for this are artists. JK Rowling sold her writing for over a billion dollars. The work was, as far I know, created pretty much solely by her. You can point to the book publishing system as a whole, but she has nothing to do with that. All she did was write some books and sell them to an already existing system.
Yes, for that particular person it has created value. But for the world, it has lost value. The value isn’t real value, it’s a type of debt.
You’re moving value later to value now, in the form of enjoying smoking.
Consider: if the conditions of our work were different, many people would not smoke. If nicotine didn’t happen to have a biological effect on the human brain, then nobody would smoke. The value created is only in the context of those constraints, and many more (including regulatory ones, which is why we see less smoking today).
I view it as a type of loan. Is loaning money a productive activity? Of course not, because no value is created, it’s merely moved. If the entire economy was just loaning money, then GDP would maybe go up but no value would be created. Smoking is a loan from the tobacco company. You get immediate relief, in the cost of more value paid back to society at a later date.
Consider: if the tobacco industry has sold 5 billion in tobacco products, but tobacco as a whole results in 20 billion dollars in lost productivity and healthcare, then the value generated is -15 billion dollars. In actuality the estimates are much worse, because typically models only consider healthcare cost, not suffering or lost productivity due to death. Suffering, too, has a cost. How well do people work when a loved one dies?
Make a product people really want.
That applies to fentanyl and tiktok.
Yes, and people keep paying ridiculous prices for the first and for ads for the second.
There are extremely good arguments for why the act of becoming and remaining a billionaire is immoral and bad alone, without any need for you to have directly wronged someone else.
PG just completely misunderstands and hand-waves over this basic concept and makes the excuse that "hey we worked really hard and made an amazing product that people loved, we aren't harming anyone."
For one thing, founders and employees don't share equally in the high growth rate of the company even though at most a founder is working let's say 2x longer hours than a salaried employee. You can do nothing wrong but you're still taking more of your fair share by the basic structure of how the business is setup.
I think anyone who is running a successful company and doesn't have a path to converting to an employee-owned enterprise is immoral, especially if you have managed to capture $1 billion just for yourself while your median employee is just making market rate salaries, or maybe they happened to gamble on your stock options and have a modest nest egg about 1/100th-1/50th the size of your wealth as a founder.
So yeah, Jeff Bezos made $260 billion dollars, but an alternative that could have happened was "Jeff Bezos makes $50 million and every Amazon employee gets a much more fair share of the happy customers' money."
More importantly, if you have $1 billion in net worth, that means that you can choose to do anything with your life on a daily basis.
When I'm over here working my job in my cushy upper middle class life, it's still an objective truth that I need to be selfish in order to secure the future of my family. Nothing is guaranteed and we need to fend for ourselves. I can't stop working or the home finances collapse within months or a short number of years if I'm very lucky and have something significant saved up or my house paid off. I legitimately don't have the time or money to help many other people outside of my nuclear and extended family.
But when you have a billion dollars (and some people have hundreds of those and one person even has a thousand of those), that means you have no limit to what you spend your time on. You can do anything, and deciding not to work on capitalist endeavors anymore has zero chance of turning you destitute.
In other words, when you are a billionaire, what you choose to spend your time on says a lot about the content of your character compared to someone who is not that wealthy.
Paul Graham is out here giving speeches to rich kids at Oxford Union, but he could be spending his morning in the local soup kitchen or building homes with Habitat for Humanity. He could be mentoring people who are struggling to escape housing insecurity, or he could be working with advocacy groups to expand healthcare access and end childhood hunger.
He doesn't have to go to work every day like I do. But he is one of the people who has dedicated his life to capitalism, even after successfully taking care of his family for many lifetimes, and that says a lot about him.
> For one thing, founders and employees don't share equally in the high growth rate of the company even though at most a founder is working let's say 2x longer hours than a salaried employee. You can do nothing wrong but you're still taking more of your fair share by the basic structure of how the business is setup.
What is fair? Obviously hours worked is one metric to determine what is fair. But another way to arrive at what is fair is through negotiation. Neither the founders nor potential hires are obligated to work with one another. The only way it happens is if an early employee believes the compensation they are offered by the founders is fair. If it was unfair, they would presumably reject the offer outright.
Most people need money to eat. I don't know if you can ever really have a fair negotiation with an employer when "the rent is due" is involved. You know those companies that buy settlements from people in exchange for a fraction of their value immediately? You could say that this is a fair trade in an econ 101 sense that body parties rationally entered into a mutual agreement. But you could also notice that one person just got laid off and doesn't have enough money to pay rent and is therefore pressured by circumstance to accept extremely unfavorable terms because the alternative is homelessness.
> Most people need money to eat. I don't know if you can ever really have a fair negotiation with an employer when "the rent is due" is involved.
Your definition of "fair" is questionable.
If you're negotiating from a position where you've taken on debts and rent that you can't afford to pay, and time has run out to the point where you're desperate for a paycheck as soon as possible, that's unfortunate. But that's not the fault of the person you're negotiating for a job with. Exceptional cases aside, 95% of the time that's likely due to your own risk-taking, neglect, poor decision-making, or financial mismanagement. And you had a "fair" chance to not get into that situation to begin with.
But regardless of blame, it's certainly not the fault of the counterparty in your employment negotiations in that you're in that spot. Nor is it their responsibility. Nor should we want it to be! What kind of system would that be, exactly? A brutal one where many more people fall through the gaps than would otherwise. A much better system is the one we have, where people pay taxes, and do so at higher rates the more fortunate they are, and that tax money goes into programs like unemployment, which helps people in exceptional situations.
What's so unfair about this, exactly?
Actually it's probably more 99.99% likely due to the family you're born in.
> What's so unfair about this, exactly?
We don't roll the same dices at birth.
No one's saying we roll the same dice at birth. That doesn't mean that people who are so desperate that they can't risk negotiating a job offer are 99.99% in that situation because of birth rather than decisions made subsequent to birth.
Especially because in America at least, over 200 million people are born middle class or above. An even lower class in America is doing much better than many other countries in the world.
At what point in your mind does personal accountability come into play? How prosperous does a nation have to be for people to have some responsibility for the consequences of their own actions? Or are people never responsible?
Regarding personal responsibility, at an individual's level it's your responsibility to improve your life, because that's the only lever you have and you don't have the time to wait for societal changes that take decades or centuries to arrive.
When we're discussing policy for our society however it's too easy to blame people for the choices they made so we don't have to think harder. The world's complexity is beyond what the humans brain can hold at any single time. Some people are dealt bad hands, born in a difficult family, born in a body that slow them down or drag them down. Some people make one bad choice (even something mild like a financially unprofitable carrer choice) at 18 because millions of parameters that played since their birth compulsed their brain to make that choice at that moment in their life. Not even mentioning meeting the wrong people. You can do everything well and cross the path of someone who breaks you.
Truly and without getting too philosophical,looking back and learning about people's stories I've come to realize that we have little agency and by the time we understand how the world works and what we should have done instead it's often too late to change the outcome drastically.
To tie it all back to the topic of this thread, the 19 year old who's been pushed by his parents all his life to get good grades, study well, get involved in the right extracurriculars, ends up at Stanford, starts a startup because that's what people do around him, is told to apply to YC, is accepted, is taken care of by YC, tell me how much is he responsible for his success?
I don't disagree with you. I think there's an even argument along these lines that we don't really have free will, since our initial biology and environmental circumstances aren't within our control, and yet every subsequent decision and choice follows inexorably from those initial conditions.
To me, this inspires empathy and care, and it's why I believe that society should have a very high floor. But discussions like these, and the current "eat the rich" zeitgeist seem to focus so much more on lowering the ceiling. Which to me is the wrong focus.
Not really? If the same value and wealth is being created - the redistribution of it raises the floor as well.
Capping the ceiling would be a tremendous mistake. It would eliminate the "if" in your scenario. The same value in wealth would not be created. You would be massively disincentivizing people to stay here and innovate, and that innovation would flow elsewhere or simply diminish.
Luckily, we've never actually capped the ceiling, and it's unlikely we ever will.
If there's no cap on a ceiling, is it fair or humanly okay when someone's wealth is Epstein-enough to own other people's lives? Wealth is a proxy for power, when someone has more power than legal systems or enough to swindle all of it, is that a better world?
There should be a ceiling or we reach the current state where accountability is nothing a million dollars can't buy.
Do you seriously believe the by limiting people's wealth, we'll solve problems like this? Humans used to have thousands of times less wealth than we do now, yet people still had power and influence, harems and slaves, cults and gangs.
Solve? Likely not. Improve? Of course. Policies that improve the state of problems even if they remain unsolved are good.
More than one million people die of TB annually. We have a cure for it. Elon Musk could pay for testing and treatment distribution for the entire world without noticing a change in his wealth.
A million people a year.
I feel like you should read about systems thinking. You're ignoring so many potential side effects, so much history, so many statistics, incentives, human psychology. The idea of capping wealth in order to try to prevent certain power imbalances like sex trafficking, is similar to firebombing your house to fix a leaky pipe. Not only would it mess up a ton of stuff, but it wouldn't even fix the problem.
Of course there are side effects. The question is whether those side effects are worth the benefits we'd get.
Millions dead every year from TB. A curable disease.
I have never met a founder who was motivated, even in part, by the possibility of being a mega billionaire.
[dead]
You can believe that’s fair. I don’t. I don’t believe that one party needs to be at fault for an economic transaction to be unfair.
I live in a country where “oopsy doopsy your insurance denied this so now you owe us 20,000” isn’t terribly uncommon and your employer can fire you without any warning or severance. “I need money for the rent this month” is not consistently some moral failing.
If you’re an early employee at a startup, you almost certainly had other options for employment
I don’t think you can assume this to be the case, especially outside of the Bay Area.
My first startup was one where I was hired because I was young and cheap. I could be paid in free lunches rather than 401k matching and decent healthcare plans.
Big companies often pay better salaries.
There are plenty of people who would consider themselves extremely lucky to work at a startup, even for cheap. I know many older people working much worse jobs. I think it's fair to assume that most startup workers have other options, and that generally those options are worse.
Could you imagine this perception you describe playing into being underpaid?
Your last sentence you’re saying it’s fair to make this assumption that most other jobs are worse.
So that means if a non-startup offered you a better pay package your assumption and bias might steer you away and take worse compensation to do the same job.
I ask you this question because I made a similar mistake in my youth. I took a pay and benefits cut for a startup because it sounded a lot more fun. 6 months later and the company was going under and I was out of a job.
There are also plenty of employees who just didn’t get a job offer elsewhere. When I took my first startup job I didn’t have a competing offer.
I too have worked for startups that failed. And when I took those jobs, I had many thousands of alternative opportunities I could've taken instead that I considered to be worse, or at least not worth pursuing compared to the startup jobs. What's your point?
Here's an example that could help make my point: Glimpse is hiring a Security and Compliance Lead in New York City and is only paying $150K - $225K.
Meta is paying a Security Engineer (not a lead) $271,000/year to $347,000/year + bonus + equity + benefits across the following locations: Bellevue, WA, Menlo Park, CA, Washington, DC, New York, NY
I find it hard to reconcile that salary difference, and I think the only way to explain it is that startups offer dreams of upside like a smoky Vegas casino.
Working for Meta [1] is "boring" and corporate, but it's also objectively a better financial decision unless Glimpse becomes the next Uber. My point is that I am hypothesizing that tech culture encourages people (especially young people) to prefer objectively worse financial outcomes to do the exact same work at a more "exciting" startup company.
At the time you joined those startups, you considered those other opportunities to be worse, but I wonder if that was true or if that was perception? Of course, I don't intend to tell you that you were wrong, in fact I think it's highly likely you were right. I only mean to say that it's worth introspecting on the concept.
[1] Or insert any other large and slightly more ethical company, if we want to disqualify working for Meta due to its "evil empire problem."
Yeah, I mean, when you put it that way, I don't disagree with you. I think it's a matter of perception. What's better or worse will always be subjective. And there will always be gaps in the market where people make genuine mistakes, because of a lack of knowledge, or an error in judgment due to inexperience, etc.
But there are also genuine advantages that others simply might not see. For example, many would rather apply to work at a startup because it's an easier job to get than one at Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, etc., and not having to study as hard for interviews is a genuine advantage to some that's worth the money left on the table. Or for others, maybe they want a more casual work environment. Or others might just want startup experience because they hope to start a startup someday. Etc.
> If it was unfair, they would presumably reject the offer outright.
My word do people actually believe this. What theoretical econ 101 textbook are you living in?
What if you think all of the available offers are unfair but you don’t have the means to start your own business?
Then the offers are fair and your assessment of your labor value is disproven by the market rate.
That’s one definition of fairness (market rate.)
There are many other definitions of fairness as well.
This comes back to the thread we’re discussing. What a fair wage means is a philosophical and moral question. Not just a math problem.
If someone inherits a business and earns higher wages than their workers is that fair? What did they do to earn that?
If the market rate is so fair why does the minimum wage and child labor laws exist?
Hey, that 8 year old was willing to work in the asbestos factory, that’s just fair market value!
If the argument is going to be “I exerted negotiation leverage over you” I think this feeds into my argument about the immorality of the whole setup.
We might as well just say “I exploited my structural power over my employees and got a better deal for myself.”
Of course the employees agreed to the deal presented to them, what other option did they have? They aren’t like all these founders that have the luxury of being unemployed because their dad will pay the rent.
That’s another point I forgot to bring up entirely: PG also hand-waved over the quantity of billionaires from his accelerator that came from families of very decent means where they have the luxury of risking failure. The quantity of true rags to riches billionaires is extremely slim.
> Of course the employees agreed to the deal presented to them, what other option did they have?
What? The employees had infinity other options! They could have negotiated harder. They could have declined the job. They could have taken a job somewhere else. They could have taken the risk to start their own startup, and been in the founder position, instead of choosing to be in the employee position and getting the security and reduced stress that comes along with it.
> That’s another point I forgot to bring up entirely: PG also hand-waved over the quantity of billionaires from his accelerator that came from families of very decent means where they have the luxury of risking failure. The quantity of true rags to riches billionaires is extremely slim.
Over 200M Americans come from middle class backgrounds are above. YC also provides founders with the funds to pay themselves while they start their company. I did YC when I had almost $0 to my name and no well-off family to rely on.
youre not going to negotiate your way to 40% ownership of the company with a strike price of $0.00001
Then go start your own company?
you have completely drank the kool aid
Why do you expect outsized rewards without taking outsized risks? Companies don't start themselves.
I totally recognize what you’re saying. We have to be able to encourage risk-taking if we want to have innovation. I get it.
But you said earlier that YC pays founders for living expenses. What risk are YC founders taking?
In contrast, every startup I’ve worked at has offered equity in the form of options where I had to stake my personal finances just to own company equity. None of them granted shares to me as a reward for my labor. I was taking more of a financial risk than the founder of the company just to own a stake!
VC-backed Startups are much different than small businesses where founders take personal financial risks. The VC itself is also not taking any kind of outsized risk as it has mitigated that risk by betting on dozens of companies. They expect most of their companies to fail and leave their employees high and dry, but that’s not their problem and is baked into the formula.
Essentially VCs have plenty of capital and no ideas, so they pay outsized equity compensation to founders for ideas. But the early employees are just interchangeable implementers and get basically nothing by comparison.
If I started a cupcake truck with my friends, they wouldn’t be my friends anymore if I decided I get 50x their equity stake just because it was my idea.
In my opinion, our business systems have been allowed to get away with much more inequality than should be legal. Each caste is orders of magnitude away from each other rather than being linear steps above each other.
Every day, there are trillions of prices that are set by sellers, and either accepted or rejected or counter-offered by buyers. Of course, sellers want higher prices, and buyers want lower prices. There is no one person who can determine what a fair price is. A fair price is one that both buyers and sellers agree on, that creates a successful transaction.
Importantly, people are free to walk away from a bad deal. If you don't like a store's wares, you can go to another store. If you don't like a job offer, you can apply to a different job. Freedom of choice creates competition, which puts pressure on buyers and sellers alike to actually come to terms.
Your post comes across as someone who is consistently in the seller position (selling your labor for compensation), and who's simply advocating for his own personal interests in wanting higher wages. But for some reason, you think your own personal opinion about exactly how much you should be paid is what the bar is for "fair", rather than the prices set by the market, that is, the repeated agreements by tens of thousands of people day after day for years.
And that perplexes me. Why are you so special? Why is your opinion or anybody else's opinion supposed to be the basis of what's fair? I've never met someone who's not just going to argue for their own interests here, exactly as you're doing.
If you don't think it's a good deal to work at a startup and get the equity that you're offered, then you can negotiate or you can just walk away from the deal and work somewhere else. There are many tens of thousands of jobs that I personally don't think are a good deal, or I wouldn't work there. But for other people, they are a good deal. I don't really understand where this belief comes from that, because you personally don't find it to be a good deal, that it's objectively unfair for everyone else, even as they're accepting it willingly.
> But you said earlier that YC pays founders for living expenses. What risk are YC founders taking?
I could have easily gone and gotten a job at Google and made a lot more money very easily. Instead, I spent a ton of time and effort trying to create something new in the world and take it from zero to one. That was a lot of personal sacrifice, giving up my nights and weekends and living off Ramen noodles and almost no money. Just that I could get something successful and useful enough to be in a position to realistically even apply to YC and hopefully get accepted. And I was still rejected twice before finally getting in.
If you think being a founder is so risk-free, so easy, and such a good deal because of how much equity you get to keep, then presumably what should happen is many more people should find the prospect attractive and become founders, relative to becoming early-stage employees, and that should drive up the prices that early-stage employees are able to charge.
I think the way we can summarize exactly what you said as:
Selling labor on the labor market, well, you can just go find whatever offer is on the labor market (e.g., your first five paragraphs)
You had to beat out a bunch of other people and get rejected twice in order to go the startup route. However, I think you are mistaking hard work and low pay for risk in this transaction.
There's no risk because, like you said, "I could have easily gone and gotten a job at Google and made a lot more money very easily." You can always go back to selling your labor on the market.
You aren't risking any personal property or savings. A college student is also living on ramen and giving up nights and weekends, but they are actually taking a bigger risk than a VC founder by paying tuition to the school.
What is happening here is that VCs/incubators are using scarcity as a quality filter since they're trying to buy good ideas/stake in early stage companies and dangle the founders' lottery ticket/casino jackpot to buy those ideas.
I think that startup founders are in weird sandwich between being exploited by VCs in the worst case and being unfairly over-compensated by them in the best case. I'm sure many of your early employees also worked nights and weekends just like you did, but they have less of an ownership stake than founders do.
Maybe the founder's scenario is similar to an NFL player, where average players have short careers and are left with broken bodies and dreams, while the star quarterbacks leave as billionaires. This is why the NFL has a players union.
I agree with most of what you're saying -- but just wanted to add some notes here: 1) founders should start companies where equity is distributed to the early employees much more evenly: this actually gives additional super-powers to the company since employee incentives are much more closely aligned with the vision of the founders (building something great that people love to use). 2) stop rewarding growth: there is nothing wrong with NOT growing 90% a month. The goal of most companies shouldn't be to grow or return maximum value to investors (or shareholders): it should be to provide a greater human good the markets will be willing to pay for 3) revenue growth also is not something to aim for: sustainable income growth is. 4) unless the billionaires start re-distributing their wealth -- history is not on their side. A revolution will happen: usually this is associated with the younger male population being unemployed (~15% is the magic number) and causing an uprising. The goal of most founders at this point should not be 'how do I get to 1 billion.' The massive unemployment caused by the AI revolution will cause a massive uprising. There is great danger I think if they do not figure out a way to re-distribute their wealth. Currently, the poor and middle class are taxed way more than the rich (as a percentage of their income): and from what I see are increasingly becoming more disgruntled with the situation they are in. Why in the world would anyone want to even be a billionaire in this situation is the question I want to ask?
>So yeah, Jeff Bezos made $260 billion dollars, but an alternative that could have happened was "Jeff Bezos makes $50 million and every Amazon employee gets a much more fair share of the happy customers' money."
Jeff Bezos famously took an $80,000/yr salary. Bezos didn't make $260 billion, or anything within 1/1000th of that. He built a company, that through some inane estimations his share of which might be $260 billion.
For him to not have that imaginary $260 billion would be for the company to not be built at all. So, if that's what you want, you're at least consistent... but no one else would think that a particularly good idea. Quite a few people like being able to order things online and receive them quickly. They don't want to have to go back to stomping through Walmart, hoping that the store has what they need.
I think part of the problem is that if you can slap a label on someone of "Eleventy billion dollars", everyone's brain malfunctions and treats it as a literal fact, regardless of the truth of the label. When you don't want billionaires to have billions, what you're saying is that you don't want them in control of those billion dollar companies. But do you not want the companies to exist, or do you just want someone else in control of those companies? And who?
Dollars are the way we denominate wealth - no one who understands this thinks that these numbers represent cash that they hold. But that's a far cry from it being imaginary.
This seems to come up on every thread like this. Owning 9% of a company that generates ~$80B in profits and employees 1.5m+ people is literally a massive amount of wealth and putting a dollar figure on that is both straightforward and accurate.
Anyone who owns a house can understand that liquidity and net worth are two different things. But shares of Amazon are far more liquid than a typical home.
In case you need a real example, Bezos personally funds Blue Origin by selling around $1B worth of Amazon stock each year. That's 11000 people earning their salaries + a huge amount of capital investment that are all funded from this so-call "imaginary" money. I can assure you that each time those people get a paycheck, it's just as real as yours.
>Dollars are the way we denominate wealth
Sure, but we also attach imaginary dollars to things that wouldn't and can't sell for those imaginary dollars, or even large fractions. And I expect older children to at least catch on to that fact, but a great many adults never seem to.
> and employees 1.5m+ people is l
So is that what the leftists hate? That he employs 1.5 million people? You want that to stop. That's the the part of the him being a billionaire that hurts the most?
>and putting a dollar figure on that is both straightforward and accurate.
If that were true, he could sell it for that valuation tomorrow. But as soon as he tried, the amount would drop, and the company might even be in peril. So it's neither accurate nor straightforward. It's convoluted and overestimated.
>In case you need a real example, Bezos personally funds Blue Origin
So that's the part of his wealth that you despise... that he employs people making spaceships? Those 11,000 people are the problem?
You're not even staying consistent in your own replies in this one comment. Let me boil it down: are the 11,000 people who earn their salary at Blue Origin getting real money or not?
My point is has nothing to do with despising blue origin - it's just a direct contradiction to your absurd belief that this wealth is imaginary. You can't fund that big a company on imagination!
>are the 11,000 people who earn their salary at Blue Origin getting real money or not?
Are they earning (collectively) $260 billion? Are they earning anything like a significant fraction of $260 billion? Is the amount they collectively earn, whatever the total, coming out of Jeff Bezos' wealth, subtracted from it, or are they paid out of several different funding streams such as the government contracts and commercial revenue?
And you think this is somehow some sort of gotcha question. "Look, I've proved that Jeff Bezos has $260 billion!" (or whatever the amount was supposed to be). You're unable to think clearly or correctly on the matter. It's scary how confused you are.
I'm actually making a very simple point. You said most of Jeff Bezos wealth is imaginary / not real. But he's proven that he can turn it into cash at a rate of at least $1B per year.
And again, he only owns 9% of Amazon. Of course if he dumped all of that stock at once the price would go down, but Bill Gates sold almost all of his Microsoft stock for cash and Microsoft stock has continued to go up. Jeff Bezos could certainly do the same and come out the other end with around $260B in cash - but he has zero reason to go do that..
Here's another way to look at this: do you have a retirement account? Is the money in there imaginary? If not, why not?
Pure envy.
[dead]
Grombobulous says "Paul Graham is out here giving speeches to rich kids at Oxford Union, but he could be spending his morning in the local soup kitchen or building homes with Habitat for Humanity. He could be mentoring people who are struggling to escape housing insecurity, or he could be working with advocacy groups to expand healthcare access and end childhood hunger."
Which of those would provide the most benefit to the world?
Grombobulous says "But he is one of the people who has dedicated his life to capitalism, even after successfully taking care of his family for many lifetimes, and that says a lot about him."
You're simply anti-capitalist. Please post about that instead of mounting personal attacks on people who make more money than you. And please cease telling other people what to do and not do! Try to put yourself into their shoes and think harder about their situation.
> And please cease telling other people what to do and not do!
This is the most ironic comment I've seen in a while.
Not ironic but perhaps somewhat self-contradictory. In any case it is very reasonable as an assumption for civil debate.
I’m not anti-capitalist at all, but all good things have limits. It’s a wonderful thing to eat a scoop of ice cream, or three scoops of ice cream, but I would never suggest that anyone eat 1000 scoops of ice cream.
Grombobulous says "I’m not anti-capitalist at all".
Nonsense. You are a simple study and you are envious. There are good reasons why envy is listed as one of the "Seven Deadly Sins". See Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy
Reading "St. Augustine on Envy" might help:
https://fountainofelias.blogspot.com/2019/08/st-augustine-on...
Thomas Aquinas on Envy:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3036.htm
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Envy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/envy/
> cease telling other people what to do and not do!
People like you are so sociopathic and unaware that it's simply comedy.
> people who make more money than you.
One of the things I realized, as I made more money... was how much _easier_ every aspect of earning gets, as you are already earning more, and as you need it less.
We live in a system that almost _automatically_ overallocates wealth to people who do little for society. It's pathetic.
Unworthy.
[flagged]
> What exactly is inconsistent about this?
Assuming invariance of scale between how growth works between a family's height and how a company worth a billion(s?) operates relative to the environment. It's the same error Paul makes when he has the politicians calculate the log base and form that connection about exponents in their minds.
This is the level of detail I am asking for. “Subpopulation height increases because of the physical and understood processes of maturation and growth”. You could easily go into the biology involved, model the genetic, environmental, and random variance.
You will note that PG does not provide such a mechanism for how a $100m company grows into a $10b company (thus producing $b wealth for founders).
Just to be clear. I am not saying at the object level that such growth is impossible. I am saying that at the meta/causal level, PG did not adequately characterize it it.
Your analogy does not apply. Billionaires are growing faster than anybody else in the global economy. The impoverished are growing slowest. If you want to apply this to your family then the adults would be growing by 15% every year, while your kids growing the least (and your teenagers would be shrinking).
If we take this analogy further, your kids would be the ones working the hardest to bring the food on the table required for this growth, and the adults would consume like 90% of it.