> Wealth is assets that earn while you sleep
Rent seeking is not regarded very highly on HN.
Rent seeking is not regarded very highly on HN.
Realistically speaking, rent seeking is the only way present young and future generations are able to participate in economic "growth" effectively. The human population grows, but the chance to participate in the industries and locations with the highest ROI on human capital does not. In fact, wage stagnation and inflation have stunted ROI on human capital in many non-growth industries in developed countries already.
In fact, in my country where given the current trajectory of public policy I will see a huge net loss in pension benefits despite paying into the system more than any previoius generation in real terms already, without rent seeking through investing, I would literally end up poor as fuck and a slave to the state and would never have a chance to stop working short of just dying.
Rent seeking is how the current system works, get over it.
I think rent can be a beautiful way to earn profit and to connect with people.
If you are earning with rent it doesn't necessarily mean that you're evil and that you're abusing your "customers" with unreasonable demands or unexpected surprises.
They exploit people on both sides of their business: consumers and laborers
Would it not be equally fair to claim that both consumers and laborers also "exploit" FAAANG companies to their own benefit? Take Amazon as a single example - if not for the Amazon fulfilment centers, where else would these workers find employment? And if the claim is that it's such a terrible work environment, why not work somewhere else? Fact is, they are employed there of their own volition so clearly there must be some advantage over potential alternatives. Comparing Amazon to a hypothetical "perfect" employer is a straw man, a more fair comparison is to existing alternatives (including unemployment).
Would it not be fair to also suggest that Amazon has, directly and indirectly, contributed to raising more people out of poverty than any other company in history? They have opened the global supply chain to everyday consumers on a massive scale. Because of this, one can now buy a 65" flat screen television for $500 USD - a price point within reach of many low income households and no longer considered a luxury purchase. And the factories where these are made are paying much higher wages in much better working conditions than existed previously. And they are continuously improving.
Or consider AWS - this alone has enabled countless startups to succeed with virtually no upfront infrastructure costs. If AWS disappeared tomorrow, how many HN readers' jobs would be in serious trouble. How many newly minted millionaires owe their success, in some small part, to the services that AWS provides?
The point is, this is a give and take situation. Sure FAAANG companies make money. Because we give it to them, voluntarily, because we have decided that the benefits they bring to us are worth more than the cash we exchange for it.
If one has an issue with how any of these companies conduct themselves, the obvious response is to take your business elsewhere. If enough people agree, the business will adjust or a competitor will take its place.
I don't personally care much for companies making it impossible to repair their products, but I'm also of the opinion that I can vote with my feet and with my money to help change that.
There was a good article on HN a few weeks back that interviewed people in Amazon’s warehouses as the union debate heated up in the US. What struck me was that many were there because they didn’t have other options. Some were previously working very middle class jobs which no longer existed because they were outsourced and now were making much, much less because there were no good alternatives. People choosing the lesser of two evils doesn’t make for a compelling argument for the virtues of them acting out of their own volition. And that globalization that brought about that point may very well have lifted others elsewhere out of poverty but it seems to conflict with the article’s claim about non-zero sum wealth generation.
In the brick and mortar stores that wouldn't have closed if Amazon wasn't there.
>it's such a terrible work environment, why not work somewhere else?
Because Amazon destroyed these somewhere elses.
>Because we give it to them, voluntarily, because we have decided that the benefits they bring to us are worth more than the cash we exchange for it.
This decision is wrong though. Humans are pretty bad at taking externalities into account.
>I can vote with my feet and with my money to help change that.
You can't when existing players use their established position as a way to prevent new players from entering the market.
This seems unlikely, online shopping is far too convenient and provides far too much value for brick and mortar stores to compete. However, that's not to say that these stores necessarily went out of business. A savvy proprietor would see the writing on the wall and move their operations online.
>Because Amazon destroyed these somewhere elses.
Why Amazon? Would it also not be fair to say that consumers destroyed the somewhere elses by shopping online instead of on main street?
>This decision is wrong though. Humans are pretty bad at taking externalities into account.
That's the thing about freedom - when people are free to make their own decisions, one must accept that they may occasionally make (to some observers) irrational or counterproductive decisions. That does not mean that removing said freedoms is an acceptable solution.
>You can't when existing players use their established position as a way to prevent new players from entering the market.
This statement holds. Anti-competitive behaviour is counterproductive and should be discouraged because it has a negative impact on the free market.
If anything, the HN groupthink is counterproductive. I find that the true value of the HN community is the diversity of the voices and opinions here, not what "all of HN" thinks, which is not always correct (and often not).
Because in reality, it only takes a few undisputed replys or posts to make someone assume it's a ubiquitous idea.
So, the comment attempts to impose on the reader the perception that any contrary belief to what the commentary implies is a "normal HN opinion" is something that should not be held with credibility.
It's counterproductive to say that some non-zero group of people on HN believe something when a possibly equal or greater non-zero group believe something to the contrary. It makes me wonder if the point of the comment is to suppress contrary positions.
But yes, that seems correct to me.
There's a lot wrong with corruption, where laws and politicians are bought with money. There's a lot of wrong with regulatory capture, where market regulation is distorted in a way that makes competition against the status quo next to impossible.