You invent a water pumping system for your friend. Your friend doesn't have to walk to the river anymore; you've given him 1 hour of time a day. Wonderful! Your tribe finds out; 50 people use the system too. Now 50 hours saved per day. Wonderful!
-
-
Show this thread
-
The local village, 2000 people, starts using the system. You've now contributed 2000 hours of value, *daily*, to the community. This is huge. Yes, you only made a water pump, but the value doesn't come from what you made, it comes from the benefit to the whole around you.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Example connects neatly to the '2000x smarter' as well - if someone else had made a pump at the same time that was only a little bit worse, they wouldn't create just a little bit less value. No one would use their pump at all, so while you've created 2000 hrs, they've created 0
-
The second pump adds nothing, but it does change the counterfactual value of your pump. And it would also change the market value of your pump, since that someone else is a potential entrant to the market.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The problem is introduced when instead of that pump being of value to a community, and saving them 2000 hours, the solution is leveraged for personal benefit, and while you save them 2000 hours, you demand some amount of compensation <= 2000 hours worth of value.
-
In this situation you haven't saved 2000 hours, you've leveraged a tech advantage to extract those hours from those around you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think in this kind of discourse, a lot of arguments are taken as a starting point when they are actually a response to another (often overly simplistic,) argument. On its own, the argument you quoted seems to indicate a complete lack of understanding of what value is. 1/2
-
Though it might be considered a reasonable response to something like - "If someone is smarter and more hard working, they deserve to get more money!". An even better response would be that talking about deservance is a waste of time when we could be focusing on utility. 2/2
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The implied “they don’t deserve it” claim I see a lot is weird. Like.. deserve....? Who cares... that’s super deep moral philosophy we’re talking about now if you say “deserve”. They provided a lot of value, and made a bunch of money. Awesome. I’m happy for them. The end.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.