Hacker News Reader

Comment by rick888 | Hacker News Reader

"addressing the problems of capitalism as suggested by the author of the article?"

and what problems are those?

That not everyone comes out on top? Of course this is the case. I am interested in alternatives that don't involve limiting the success of the people that are actually creating wealth or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes.

When you've lived long enough, you realize that there aren't many ideas that are truly unique. Most "new" ideas are just old ideas that have been sugar-coated to make them more palatable. So I'm waiting for your new and unique idea that will somehow give people a better chance at life, success, an freedom than capitalism.

View on HN

Did I suggest I had any such idea? Did I suggest limiting anyone's success or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes?

The problems in question are not that not everyone comes out on top - it's that "not coming out on top" involves a great deal of exploitation and coercion. More so than most will admit. The problem is that "coming out on top" now means you control a hugely disproportionate sum of wealth - and thereby exert a disproportionate influence on society, invariably to the expense of others.

"limiting the success of the people that are actually creating wealth."

And therein lies one of the problems - the rewards do not go to those who make the wealth, and that's exactly the point the author of the article was making.

If an engineer invents a radical new process for fabricating microchips, who is paid the huge sum of money resulting from it - the CEO or the engineer? Which one actually created wealth and value?

"When you've lived long enough, you realize that there aren't many ideas that are truly unique."

This is merely condescension. Age doesn't grant you any magical insights, and you don't have to reach a certain age to know there are no new ideas. I figured that out a long time ago. That said, you want to talk about defeatists attitudes? "There are no new ideas" is a cake taker in that department.

I don't have all the answers, and I don't claim to - but we have absolutely zero chance of addressing social issues if we as a society won't even acknowledge them. And just because I don't have a better alternative right now, doesn't mean that no one else does either - or that I won't in the future.

"Did I suggest I had any such idea? Did I suggest limiting anyone's success or taking exorbitant amounts of money through taxes?"

No, but I'm waiting for it.

"The problem is that "coming out on top" now means you control a hugely disproportionate sum of wealth"

...that you've earned. I don't see a problem.

"and thereby exert a disproportionate influence on society, invariably to the expense of others."

Then let's not allow people with money to set the rules. Capitalism isn't the problem. It's corrupt politicians that take kickbacks. I would also like to mention that money is power. In any time in history, the more money you have, the more power you possess. It will always be the case. If not money, then whatever currency we are using. It's not like you can't go out and earn your own.

"And therein lies one of the problems - the rewards do not go to those who make the wealth, and that's exactly the point the author of the article was making."

You can't make a blanket statement like this, because it's not true in most cases. When the guy in the article was working as a "Jack-in-the-Box counterperson", what was he willing to risk all of his time and money to run the business? It sounds to me like he wants the same amount of profits as an owner, but none of the risks.

As I've stated earlier, I don't think people would really like it if companies were allowed to hire people at no pay, work them day and night for the hope that they will make a profit (which is what it takes as an owner). Just ask anyone here that is trying to start a company. You might make it big, but you will probably fail many more times before you succeed.

Most people want a comfort blanket. They don't want to have to worry about profit margins. They want to know that they will get paid every month.

"If an engineer invents a radical new process for fabricating microchips, who is paid the huge sum of money resulting from it - the CEO or the engineer? Which one actually created wealth and value?"

If the engineer is under contract and using the resources, money, and lab of his employer to create this radical new process, he is getting paid a salary he agreed upon (which wasn't by force). If he is using all of his own equipment, under no contract, it can make him very rich. I don't really see a problem with anything you are describing, except your sense of entitlement.

"This is merely condescension. Age doesn't grant you any magical insights, and you don't have to reach a certain age to know there are no new ideas. I figured that out a long time ago. That said, you want to talk about defeatists attitudes? "There are no new ideas" is a cake taker in that department."

Do you actually think I believe there isn't anything new? I was merely pointing out that there are thousands of years of history and experience in the economic, finance, and politics department, which can show you what works and what doesn't (and if your idea is radically new or just a rehash of something old).

Age can grant you insight, if you learn from history and your experiences.

Ponzi schemes are a good example of this. They will always fail in the end, yet people continue to fall for them.

"I don't have all the answers, and I don't claim to - but we have absolutely zero chance of addressing social issues if we as a society won't even acknowledge them. And just because I don't have a better alternative right now, doesn't mean that no one else does either - or that I won't in the future."

There are more important social issues to address than some guy that is whining about his life.

"No, but I'm waiting for it."

Keep waiting then, because it's not going to happen. I would never suggest anything of the sort. It's not nearly creative enough of a solution, for one thing.

"...that you've earned. I don't see a problem."

Just because you don't see a problem, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't.

"what was he willing to risk all of his time and money to run the business?"

Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. See: Venture Capitalism.

"It sounds to me like he wants the same amount of profits as an owner, but none of the risks."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the author's position.

"If the engineer is under contract and using the resources, money, and lab of his employer to create this radical new process, he is getting paid a salary he agreed upon (which wasn't by force)."

He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it.

"If he is using all of his own equipment, under no contract, it can make him very rich."

Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else.

"I don't really see a problem with anything you are describing, except your sense of entitlement."

This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever.

"Do you actually think I believe there isn't anything new? I was merely pointing out that there are thousands of years of history and experience in the economic, finance, and politics department, which can show you what works and what doesn't (and if your idea is radically new or just a rehash of something old)."

This much is blatantly obvious. And?

"There are more important social issues to address than some guy that is whining about his life."

More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully.

A couple of issues...

First, your CEO, it's true, did not likely put financial risk on the line to take the position obtained. But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?

Secondly, your point on coercion. Yes, you can certainly argue that the engineer was "forced" at some level to take a job, and thus some salary. But in a world living with people you will never be free of all influences or coercion. Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion.

"But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?"

This does not address the argument that rewards are being disproportionately bestowed on someone who took no risks, and arguably, produces less wealth or value on the whole than the people who actually do the work of creating and building products and services.

"Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion."

Not at all. Coercion implies a disparity of leverage. The company has money (the means of survival, in this society) at their disposal. The employees do not, or else they wouldn't be looking for a job, would they?

In the worst case scenario the company doesn't get to make a product but still retains it's money, but the would-be employees have nothing, and are either reduced to subsistence level living, the charity of others, or simply starve.

"So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't."

It's not for you to decide, because it's not your money. Why do you think you should have the right to decide how someone else (company or person) spends their money? If you don't like this fact, work somewhere else and don't buy their products.

"Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. "

Many people also don't need VC. See: every company that's bootstrapped.

"He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it."

You seem to have lots of opinions on our current system, but no idea how you could make it better.

"Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else."

It depends on the industry. Have you heard of bank loans?

"This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever."

I don't need you to state it. I can see it all over your posts. Using words like "ad hominem" doesn't change this fact.

"This much is blatantly obvious. And?"

you probably haven't actually looked into it. If you had, you might not

"More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully."

I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what that word means. I read the article carefully. He's trying to make it look like the world is a terrible place based on his own experiences. If you based our entire system on his experience, it will look bad. However, when you take a step back and look at it as a whole, it's pretty damn good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com