A staggering calculation of the $47T cumulative wealth transfer from the bottom of the income distribution to the top over the past forty years.https://bit.ly/3u9F90p
-
Yes, the pie has grown, but some slices have grown much faster than others. And the idea that this is due to the special merit of those getting a bigger slice rather than to changes in the system is quite self-serving.
It's due to both. The reason founders get so much richer is that it's easier to start a company that grows fast. That's a change in the system. But as someone whose job it was to find them, I can tell you the sort of people who can start these companies are rare.
-
-
You’re right, but these rare people could pay their more-normal employees better.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Think about the fact that the vast majority of humanity has no ability to take risks, especially entrepreneurial risks. Imagine if you unleashed their creativity. Resources are wasted on the rich.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But how do you separate the effects? It could be that it is not that rate but most are anchored due to structural effects.
-
A lot of the value generated goes unrecognized financially. For example creators of open source software and art.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Right, but just compare the returns to those kind of people today versus a decade ago, or two decades ago. Are you saying that someone like Adam Neumann should be paid hundreds of times more than what the founders of Intel or HP made at a similar stage of their company?
-
For that matter, compare what Steve Jobs made from Apple to what founders of far less consequential companies have made recently. There is just this enormous flow towards the top few.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think it's easier to start a company that grows fast and is profitable. Very few seem to be able to pull that off. What has changed is the ability of people who grow big companies that have no business model to walk away with large amounts of money. That's the change.
-
I think some perspective is helpful--startups are small part of economy. So overall economic trends shouldn't be seen through this lens at all
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Disingenuous argument. The study is about income inequality and you’re referring to wealth accretion (via company shares). Here is a relevant snippet from the paper’s methodology.pic.twitter.com/y9uPSMc2m1
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree on both. Extremely talented people make such companies. Technology as a multiplier along with new finance ecosystem ( VC etc) helps grow fast. Yet a society can only sustain so much inequality before a backlash( even if fair wealth). Possibly a Silicon valley blindspot.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.