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
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
i generally agree with your argument. the issue is this step - neither value creation nor wealth are linear. value creation plateaus out while the founders wealth creation grows exponentially after they reach a certain wealth
take Google as example. would most of us be happy with the google from 5 years ago? hell i’ll even take 10 years ago. the value difference is negligible- but in the last 5 years or 10 google founders and execs have made A TON more $ from $ they already had. this is the problem
If you win the Superbowl you don't get the number 1 draft choice (unless you've somehow traded for it). Moreover, the NFL shares revenue among teams. The NFL caps incentives to create a larger audience.
the other bit - its not about incentives, its really about feedback loops. The thing is a billionaire or reigning monarch may be an exceptionally smart and nice person, but because their actions influence huge numbers of people, they can't practically receive feedback from the
people they are impacting; and this can lead to harm that may not have been intentional. Like if I were giving a shot to a patient I could not hear, more likely to hurt them. For any one person to have that level of power over others is not healthy, and money is essentially a
This gets at the core question: the counterfactual is would a higher marginal personal income tax rate have changed any of those outcomes? One recent natural experiment: Bezos' current & future share of Amazon's returns was cut by 50% and his behavior changed...zero, nada, zilch
Mark Zuckerberg allegedly wanted to "connect society" and most of FB's actuall-good bits were invented pre-revenue. They were not predicated on a DCF expecting anything like current results. Jobs was clearly motivated more by the work than the specific scale of fortune. etc,etc
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
