U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
1/ My defense of billionaires: becoming a billionaire is generally tied to creating MANY billions of value for others. The societal contributions of billionaries increase our quality of life MUCH more than their existence decreases our quality of life.https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg/status/1224162470945685504 …
2/ Would you rather have access to Amazon, Uber, Apple, FB, Google, Ikea, Walmart, Ford, etc. while the founders of those companies become very rich, or would you rather have neither the founders becoming wealthy nor those companies' products?
3/ Note that no one says, "once a salesperson sells $500k, that's more than enough, so we'll stop paying them commission." Or, "this team already won two Superbowls, so let's ban them from future championships." So why would capping incentives for value creation be a good idea?
4/ Finally, some billionaires are wonderful people and some are awful, just like some minimum wage workers are wonderful people and some are awful. The solution is not to punish billionaires, but instead to punish bad behaviors.pic.twitter.com/JyUYElNZNQ
More than half of the world doesn't have access to these companies products already. I believe they would prefer a better wealth distribution.
Is your argument that these founders needed the potential tens of billions of dollars to incentivize them to create these companies? That they wouldn’t have created them if their upside was a mere $100m?
Yes. Messing with incentives will also mess up outcomes. An example: your net worth is $100m (the cap). Your company can pursue a strategy w/a 70% chance to 2x and 30% chance of losing 25%. Would you take it? If wealth is capped, then for you this high EV path is downside-only.
Anti-wealth people believe this is a false dichotomy. They think there is a way to have all those nice things without anyone becoming a billionaire.
Those are not the only options. The problem isn't that an entrepreneur owns an outsized share of their company and gets rich that way. The problem is that the dollar value of their wealth grows, their workers get more productive, yet the split between them isn't changing.
False analogy. If they could "only" make 500million, or even just one Billion, would their companies suddenly fail because they might give it up (no certainly) and someone else takes charge???
Not so much fail as plateau much sooner. See:https://twitter.com/lpolovets/status/1224185199199571969 …
The issue is in your last statement. A rich AF founder does not equal a rich AF company. They aren’t interdependent.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
