Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry if challenging your ideas is seen as being "extremely stubborn". I mean, if your ideas don't hold up, you should change them, not attack the people who pressure test them.

But regardless, silicon valley workers get equity as well that is taxed as capital gains - some times that makes up a very large proportion of their income. This is doubly true with equity from start-ups that might entirely be taxed at long-term capital gains.

But the point stands - what's the cut off. Sure, the guy making $40k is different than the billionaire. What about the guy making $500k? $1M? $5M? Now we're in CEO territory. Are CEOs "workers"?

The argument just doesn't hold water.

View on HN

There’s a qualitative difference between having a couple thousand RSUs and having a voting stake in a company. Tech workers are well off, but they’re nowhere near as well off as C-level execs and even less well off than major shareholders in the companies they work at. It’s the difference between being upper middle class and rich.

All stockholders have a "voting stake" in a company. C-level execs may get a lot more shares, but their voting power is tiny compared to the institutional investors. Board of Directors have voting power, but often token salaries.

But you said it's the difference between "upper middle class" and rich? So I ask again, what's the cut off?

In 2019, SF Gate found a household income of around 200k a year was still “middle class” (https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/amp/SF-househ...). I’d wager that’s a fair bit higher now.

Even among those making over 200k, there’s a qualitative difference between needing to work and being able to live off passive income. To say someone making 500k a year has more in common with someone who has immense generational wealth just misses the point. The political incentives are different.

I’m obviously aware that all shareholders have a voting stake - but most of their stakes are so small as to be negligible.

No, you’re just arrogant. You sound like a boomer through and through.

You have extremely weak arguments and constantly try to choose tiny things to create a wedge issue. Your argumentation is ineffective and trollish. You don’t win any arguments - you just troll online. I get it - you have nothing better to do with your life. It’s why I see you all over posting all the time. You’re like an old man yelling into the wind. And like that man - soon to be dust in it.

You have ignored my questions and resorted to name calling and personal attacks.

Which makes me think you’re just wrong and can’t admit it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com