Was a writing prompt that I’ve read quite a few years ago ago, copied below:
“You live in a world where each lie creates a scar on the liar’s body. The bigger the lie, the deeper and larger the mark. One day, you meet someone that only has one scar; it is the biggest one you have ever seen.”
This is the story that followed, credit to wercwercwerc from Reddit.
He was a real good guy, through and through. Never met anyone quite like him since, never really expect I will either.
People like Joe don’t come around often. Once in a lifetime maybe, if you’re lucky.
Almost everyone I’ve ever met had the tiny silvered papercuts of white-lies on their fingers. It’s a price of formalities, a camouflage of sorts- as everyone has a few, some deeper cut than others over the years; opened and reopened time after time. And not just that, but the larger cuts, silvery things on forearms and shins, necks or backs. People lie, it’s just the way of things.
Sometimes the pain it worth the deception, the balancing scale plays out mentally before a person’s mouth opens.
Joining the force was what I wanted. There was a lie I told myself: A Lie I scratched in deep, over and over again. I wanted to change, I wanted my parents to be proud: All lies, tiny scratching lines on my shoulder to create a strange and deceitful pattern that never seemed to heal completely.
In truth, I joined the force because I had nothing left. I joined as a last ditch effort to save myself from rock bottom. Among the elite, surrounded by the brave and the successful, I simply kept my head down. It felt like being a fox, stuck among a pack of wolves. Just being there in the first place felt like deception.
But then, there was instructor Joe.
I had more scars than most, and that earned little trust- but if people were politely cold with me, they were visibly frigid with Joe. See, he didn’t have the traditional marks on his hands, he didn’t have cuts and nicks along his arms, his face or neck: At a quick glance you might have thought him the most honest man alive. In fact, at first people did. A man in his fading thirties without scars?
That’s like a god-damn unicorn. They’re more myth and legend than person- yet there he was. Plain as day.
Everyone liked Joe that first week. Everyone wanted to be on good terms with him- I mean, who wouldn’t? In a world of liars and cheats, proof reminded at every twist and turn of the road, who wouldn’t want someone they could trust?
Well, that was before he took of his shirt in the locker-room. Before we all saw the hideous mark that covered half his back. One lie, but the most gruesome thing I’ve ever seen. From his shoulder blade to his ribs, it looked like a crashing comet of red and silvered white. A tiny portion of it just finally healing, a rough tear now recovered again.
It was all the same lie. That’s something you can just tell sometimes, just know it. Usually you can tell how many times too, but whatever the number was which he’d said that aloud, I don’t know.
He rarely spoke to begin with, issuing the orders with a stern smile, instructing as all the rest did. He was positive, encouraging, truthful: But that scar was on everyone’s mind. Deep, dark, and terrible: Someone who could tell a lie like that… Well, there was someone to watch out for. In the end though, it was at the range when things went well and truly sour.
Live-fire runs, we’d done them a thousand times, but that day I guess someone forgot themselves. Maybe they thought too much on what and how and their brain skipped a beat, or maybe they were just careless. Regardless of the reason, a shot fired when it shouldn’t have. Brass spit fire, Air swallowed metal, and lead took its first taste of iron, calcium, iron and dirt.
In that order.
We all stopped, eyes wide and watching that kid fall down real slow. First standing, staring with his hand pulling away- not even scared, just shocked. Red, like deep crimson soaking and spreading, he dropped down to his knees. Still, he wasn’t even there yet, it hadn’t quite processed.
That’s when Joe caught him- and all the shouting erupted. The pandemonium, the first real training turned to action kicking in. Cries for “Medic!” and “KIT! Get the kit!” as people ran for the directions they thought mattered.
I was close enough to know that wasn’t going to make a difference. Center of mass was what we trained for, the reason was straight and forward: Shoot to kill. Eliminate the target and move on.
So I sat there, weapon heavy in my hands as I watched Joe hold this kid, blood pouring out into the dirt like a faucet, and I listened to him repeat the words that cut deep. Over, and over, and over again.
This porcelain was tarnished but somehow brought a comfort that I remembered all to well. Streaks of auburn mixed to maroon and soon spurts of crimson peppered the liquid surface. MEDIC I shouted but it was too late. Here I sit, broken hearted
Also, they want control of your activity while your on the clock. It bothers them if you’re more productive, get the same amount of work done but can relax more at home. Which is the way it should be. If I can do the same work in 4 hours than I can in 8, I should get paid the same, and be able to relax, instead of being made to stay at work for 8hrs and be given even more things to do to just stay busy.
Some smaller companies are doing this. It makes them more agile financially and actually helps their growth to not have a building to pay for. I don’t understand the larger companies.
They spent millions building a facility or are locked into 5/10 year leases. I’ve also heard it’s because cities are dying, no one in offices to eat ‘down the street’ at the food shops, people don’t stop at the bar on the way home, no impulse shopping trip because you’re already out.
It’s probably a uniquely American thing, similar to how many malls are dying here while they thrive in Europe. Cities have been dying a slow death since like the 70s here because suburbs are a net loss in terms of revenue because they’re more expensive to maintain than the taxes they bring in, so the only way cities can afford them is to sell more land to developers to build more suburbs, which then cost the city money, and repeat into infinity.
Cities have also had a general decline in the population within urban areas during that time, with people moving out to the suburbs for the “American Dream” of owning your own house with a white picket fence, 2.5 kids, and a cat or dog (and to avoid having to look at any poor people, immigrants, or black people). This was exacerbated further during COVID as people fled denser areas. The house prices in my town that’s about an hour away from one of the most expensive cities in the country (comparable to LA prices in the city here) jumped up practically 50% during COVID while prices in the city dropped something like 20% during the first year. Prices in the city have since come back up and are now above what they were before, but prices here never came down.
Cities here also tend to have a business district, sometimes even a “central business district” that’s at the heart of the city, which is made up almost exclusively of office buildings/other companies, with workers commuting into the city. Even my town has people who drive every day to their job in the city. With many of these buildings sitting empty during COVID, there’s been a push for urban renewal by converting them into apartments, but that’s easier said than done. Offices simply don’t have the same infrastructure that apartments need in terms of basic things like plumbing, and would need to be entirely gutted, but it would be a much needed fresh supply of housing that would probably help reinvigorate these city centers.
My company just moved their office space into a smaller section of the parent company’s building, which funnily enough is nicer than where we were beforehand. Going in every few months makes the trip into London feel like a nice trip instead of a commute.
Plenty are, it’s just that the largest companies built those places, they cannot trivially liquidate them. Plus they usually own the whole land, so cutting part of it away is not easy.
They still should. For many jobs office work is a completely unnecessary waste of:
Productivity (via constant distractions)
Time (commuting)
Money (via the building maintenance costs)
Space (the actual building)
Resources (heating and shit)
But managers are loathe to ever admit any failings, our market culture frowns upon this. Hence admitting that your building is no longer needed is not a thing any manager to wants to bring up in a meeting to their bosses, so back to the office it is. :<
it’s just that the largest companies built those places
And that’s the biggest one imho: They were able to leverage their huge size to save money long term by building and owning.
Now that the status quo has changed, they want to change it back so that their advantage is still in effect.
Another reason you’ve not yet been given is that some of these companies have decades long contracts for renting. The government should intervene and cancel the contracts and pay for them to be converted to flats tbqh. Someone will say “But that will cost more than building a new one![citation needed]” but knocking down half the office buildings at once will probably give everyone in the cities supercancer*[citation needed]*
I’m extremely pro-WFH for professions that can. I’ve been doing it for 10 years and it has only gotten better since others started to experience it and have empathy for what it means to be a remote worker. Just getting that out of the way before chatting more about hidden difficulties of converting buildings to residential use…
I can’t speak for European office buildings (your use of “flats” has me assuming you’re on the other side of the pond from me), but a large number of US buildings would either have to be 100% gutted back to the main supporting beams OR pulled down and rebuilt. Issue here is a combo of proper placement of utility lines (mostly plumbing) within the building and the added weight residential use brings rather than business use.
Large office leases here have a lot of control over how their floors are laid out, but floor planning normally takes electrical runs into consideration and will leave spaces like kitchens and bathrooms unmoved. Executive offices and other private interior spaces can be created/adjusted by making interior walls and tying into electrical connections already in a floor or drop ceiling.
Plumbing is a whole other monster and takes a lot more work. Not an insurmountable consideration, just harder.
The weight of residential living is one I hadn’t considered until someone pointed it out to me. In addition to all the additional plumbing needed (whose pipes add tonnage by the time you’ve converted a building), you also have to consider water within those pipes, and if a lot of people run their kid’s evening bath around 7 PM, that’s even more tonnage, normally all in a similar vertical line because of repeated floor plans. A lot of corporate buildings here, esp older ones, just weren’t engineered for that and a lot would need significant remediation to support it.
I have way less to say about the super cancers… We did use a LOT of asbestos as we built up urban areas, though.
Yeah I think the floor weight is the actual concern and reason it doesn’t happen rather than zoning, but if it’s possible to renovate it within something close to the same cost as starting again, they should renovate it. We need to start taking into account things like the pollution for stuff like this but it not being considered doesn’t mean someone isn’t getting the bill. I don’t think people who would prefer to demolish and start again consider amount of shit that will be put into the air if you knock down a good portion of the office buildings, even if it doesn’t effect much on a grander scale it will effect the actual cities.
Would be interesting if a structural engineer did a video on all the problems and solutions etc of converting office buildings. Maybe even getting away with the bottom few floors on all office big buildings would be a good start.
My employer spent tens of millions having several custom buildings built over a decade ago. They house our servers as well. The only way they could get rid of their buildings is to get new buildings for the servers. That’s a pretty tough sell.
I’ve never understood the empty buildings argument. Wouldn’t the company be “wasting” just as much money if the building was empty or full? Might even cost more to have it occupied since then you need hvac.
No, if the building was empty, they should get rid of it. But there’s the whole sunk cost thing if they built it themselves or are in a multi year lease
That does not make sense at all if you consider the number one priority of any company: money. If they make just as much or even more when people work more efficiently they would not care.
Not just rent, they own those big buildings. They’re assets, and what happens when everyone realizes they don’t need those buildings at the same time? Corporate real estate crashes and those assets are worthless. Nobody wants a huge asset dropping off their balance sheet because they let their employees wfh before they could offload their offices.
The shitty middle management who think like your second point are convenient, but I don’t think they’re the ones making the decision to call employees back in a lot of cases.
All politiicans should be listened to with scepticism, but the Republicans have gone to full on lies, alternative truths, fraud, grifting and fascism. It’s not a both sides issue.
Sure, and I’m not saying both parties don’t want to surveil and control the population, but as you might be able to understand I’m a bit more focused on the Party that has all but made extermination of people like me the Party platform.
I’m trans. If they simply take away my access to gender affirming care they’re as good as murdering me, because I won’t last long.
Furthermore, they believe being trans is a mental illness and that we’re all groomers and rapists. It’s not much of a logical leap for them to then declare that they’re “hospitalizing us” because we present a threat to ourselves and to public safety. They already call gender affirming care “self mutilation” and they actually believe that it’s contagious and making their children trans. You’re blind if you can’t see where that’s going.
Me being a communist just gives them a reason to shoot me when we start WW3 with China lol
@queermunist@intensely_human
Будет "третья мировая война" - нам всем не жить.
В любом случае, фашизм только набирает скорость.
И он везде - национальный или гендерный, уже всё равно.
Удачи, брат или сестра.
That doesn’t make the rest automatically trustworthy. Just not genocidal. Though I tend to agree with Progressives and Socialist Dems or Socialists more often than not. Regular, middle of the road Dems, not as much.
Not genocidal eh? Ask a Democrat how many people they think Earth can support long term, then subtract that from Earth’s current population. Your answer is how many people they, at some level, believe need to be gone.
This is literally the goal. They are using porn as a trojan horse because they know nobody is going to stand up and fight them on letting children see porn
I read something the other day that they’re working on a new sorting algorithm that would limit it to the top few posts from each community within a given time frame. Specifically to address this issue.
No idea on timeframe or further details, or if I even summarized it correctly lol.
This is how the world works. On Reddit there were multiple subs that covered the same topics, but the mods developed different cultures and vibes through moderation tactics and sub policies.
If you want a car, there are different companies who all provide one but with different options. Same goes for ISPs, TV networks, restaurants, and schools.
It isn't at all a new concept and I'm not sure why people coming from reddit continue to get stuck on it. Subscribe to them all and as they mature unsub from the ones that develop into something you don't feel like you need.
Posting to all of them will be easier when cross posting is possible on Kbin (it is already possible on Lemmy) but developments like that often take time.
Adding an edit as I've thought a bit more: I think it's important, for those coming from reddit, to truly understand why the Fediverse exists. The intention is to be open source. To ensure that there is no single source of power. There are 'unlimited' options (instances, magazines, etc.) to ensure that it cannot be swayed, corrupted.
This is why people are coming from Reddit - you are seeing what happens when one corporation has the power and sets the terms.
I think it's lovely to dip your toes here, ask questions, and see if you'd like to stick around. But please do understand the intention is not to be Reddit 2.0. We should not try to turn it into that.
I think this answer is the most accurate. People get too hung up same names on different servers. There will always be multiple versions of a community whether they have the same name on different servers or whether one of them snagged the og name and others prefixed with Real_x / True_x. Imo I like it this way better because there's less favoritism to the one that comes first / people can't universally squat on a community name
I think the key for people who are confused about this is that it's necessary to consider the part after the "@" to be just as much a part of the community name as the part before it. There's no such thing as a community named "No Stupid Questions", with no @whatever after it, because all community names inherently include that portion.
As an alternative solution there are issues for "multireddit"-like features, this issue for Lemmy, and Kbin has one here.
It’s a sticking point because it’s new to people who only have experience with reddit after it became more mainstream. Lemmy, Kbin, Mastodon, etc. and how they all work together isn’t a super simple concept. For all the shortfalls of a centralized social media website, the prevention of multiple separate communities having the exact same name is convenient and simple. It prevents duplicated posts. You want to capture all of the traffic in one place. That’s why link aggregation sites and blogs exist, so in order to do that you have to subscribe to all of them. But then there’s a pretty significant chance you’ll see the exact same post cross-posted to the other 3 communities…which would annoyingly bloat your feed obviously.
I’m not going to say that reddit is the bastion of how to properly run a website. Clearly r/trees r/marijuana r/earthporn so on and so forth is super unintuitive, but until the concept of how the fediverse works becomes more common knowledge, we’ll have to help new members along. It’s taken me a little more than a week to even get remotely comfortable with how it works.
I only just learned today that I can’t see content from users on instances like lemmygrad because the instance that I joined has it blocked. I didn’t even really realize what I was doing at the time. Fortunately it’s something I also would have done, but my point still stands that its not something that’s immediately apparent or intuitive.
I think that magnifies the point I was trying to make as well. Not many people understand that lemmy.world and lemmy.ml are two separate “websites” in the same way that Facebook and Instagram are. They’re both associated with Lemmy and there’s no “Lemmy.com” per se.
Even doing this for a month now I still forget that a lot and treat posts like Reddit posts. Being a Kbin user, I have to constantly stop myself from replying to questions about Lemmy and app suggestions for features that I already have thanks to script mods. And that's even with mods that highlight the post isn't from Kbin!
It isn’t at all a new concept and I’m not sure why people coming from reddit continue to get stuck on it.
Because having communities with an identical name on different instances will fracture the community. Given the hallmarks of the fediverse this is practically intended, to my understanding, but it is bad for initial growth and coherence of posts. This happened on Reddit as well, of course it did, but the way instances are completely separate and communities can have the exact same name compounds the issue.
Because having communities with an identical name on different instances will fracture the community.
They're different communities on different websites, though. Trying to force them all into one space is erasing all communities but one, just for the sake of having to see an @website.com address, or for pretending you're not missing out on something when you ignore 99.9% of posts and comments that end up in the space.
1 million users discussing a topic spread out across 1000 communities of 1000 active users leads to more vibrant and meaningful discussions on that topic than having 1 million of them all crammed into one place, shouting and competing for slivers of attention. And no one will miss anything of deep value in the 999 other communities, because people will cross-post the good bits anyway.
Yeah let's get to that million first before splitting everyone. It's really not helpful in the current state.
And there are actually options besides "this is how it currently works so it's good". Like some kind of federated communities/magazines where when you post to one it's posted to all of them. And I'm not saying it would be technically easy to implement, I have no idea, but I'm saying there are always room for improvement.
Near-identical communities/magazines with the same exact goal isn't practical.
I think a lot of users on Reddit (including some who gave migrated to kbin/Lemmy) haven’t experienced a lot of the forum and IRC era of the internet.
As you’ve mentioned, “fractured” communities can actually be beneficial since each contribution is that much more valuable and nuances can actually exist between the similar communities. It allows things like the instance I’m on where I know I’m more likely to get a Canadian perspective in the communities on lemmy.ca versus other instances. To me that’s a huge feature over centralized platforms where those nuances would get drowned out.
For the record I don’t think what OP describes would be right. But I am certain there are better ways to mesh together disparate feeds into one and have all discussion at least be cross-referenced - something better than just crossposting. Because while
1 million users discussing a topic spread out across 1000 communities of 1000 active users leads to more vibrant and meaningful discussions on that topic
May be true, it doesn’t hold true at smaller scales; a hundred users spread out across ten communities of ten active users each is pretty much a ghost town.
Indeed, there's a viability threshold for a community, and it's probably on the order of 100 active users. Having them spread out isn't doing any of them any favours.
But that points to the need for and importance of discovery tools. Community tags, better search, better federation tools, better back-linking and cross-posting tools, user-defined lists, etc. The Misskey/Calckey "Antenna" saved-search feature would actually be very powerful in the threadiverse, particularly if coupled with community and post tags, and would really improve the visibility of new or undersized communities to those who are looking for them.
But forced amalgamation across independent and independently operated websites definitely isn't one of them.
I don’t think it should be forced, but I think some kind of option for “amalgamation” should be available, either user-side (multireddit-esque thing, etc.) or community-side.
If communities want to amalgamate, they can just collectively choose to use a different community. Negotiate mod status for the immigrating mod team, and abandon the old instance. With small communities, this is feasible. With large ones, it's not, as a significant number of members won't want to amalgamate. And they shouldn't have to.
At the user level, lists and antennae would give users a lot of power to shape their streams.
There is no "the community", though. These names don't "belong" to any one specific group of people, there's no "there can be only one" mandate.
As an example of why "there can be only one" is a bad thing, there's /r/StarWars and /r/SaltierThanCrait over on Reddit. When the Disney Sequel trilogy came out there were some Star Wars fans who liked it and some who didn't, and it became such a contentious subject that those who didn't like it were literally driven out of /r/StarWars and had to create /r/SaltierThanCrait so that they could discuss their opinions without being downvoted into oblivion or outright banned. Why should they have had to give up the name StarWars, though?
Another example is /r/Canada and /r/OnGuardForThee, which was a similar sort of schism - /r/Canada got "taken over" by right wing moderators and those who weren't of that particular political bent ended up having to make a subreddit with an unrelated name. Why should one group and not the other get to name their community "Canada"?
You make good points. I think name squatting and squabbling over who is the “real” community was prevalent on Reddit, and the way it works here fixes that.
But I still think that a downside of decentralization like this is splitting the activity up, sometimes unnecessarily, and making discovery of new communities just a bit harder. It’s not a deal breaker by any means, but I think it’s an issue that will have to be addressed either by Lemmy UI updates or third parties.
It would help, but frankly I think there needs to be more - both because it would be helpful and because, up to this point, Lemmy is mostly following in Reddit’s footsteps in terms of features.
Consider a “multipost” option, on top of the existing crosspost. Multiposting something to another community would push the post as-is (no edits allowed) there, then collate all comments across all communities it had been multiposted to into one comment section displayed on all of them. The original community each comment chain originated on could be marked on the parent comment, and child comments could automatically be routed so they originate from the parent community of the chain.
Just spitballing here, but something like this would help bridge the gap a lot more than just a multireddit port.
there's /r/StarWars and /r/SaltierThanCrait over on Reddit
Those two spaces had differing stances.
There also the case of InterestingAsFuck as opposed to DamnThatsInteresting, because why the fuck does "Fuck" have to be in the title?
But then there's shameless karma-farming duplicates, like ComedyCemetery and ComedyNecromancy.
Starting up is always hard. Short of copying over a subreddit to a declared official new home (which did happen for a few), you have to build up from nothing. I think it's come a long way in only the last few weeks. I've already seen a post complimenting the response time and answers from a Lemmy community when the Reddit posts went ignored, and also I've seen one community owner realize that the other communities of similar names are doing much better and decide to close up. Another group decided the best solution was not to try and pull in other communities, but act as a general discussion that also served to link up the many specific niche communities distributed throughout Lemmy and Kbin. Lastly the attacks on .world and .ml serve as a reminder of the benefits of having duplicity. What if one of those had been a long-time established home of a community with millions of posts and got wiped from such a thing?
This is evolution in action, what works best will prevail, and part of that will be redundancy and adaptive ability.
I’m here from Reddit and that’s what I’ve been doing, just subscribing to whatever I can find for each subreddit I’m losing, and then whichever one seems like it’s either most active or has the most quality content stays and I unsub from whatever sublems aren’t providing content.
This OP seems pissed off about subbing to multiple sublems that are the same but like…you don’t have to. Go use Reddit? lol
The multiple sublems thing is kinda the point of Lemmy, there isn’t one big overlord controlling everything
Cross instance communities or a way to stich these places together better needs to happen though. Splinter groups making their own community is fine, but there needs to be some main communities for things.
It’s not just a make it more like reddit need. If lemmy.world decides to defederate like beehaw (or goes down), then all that content is gone from lots of other people, and the fediverse as a whole loses. If there exists a way to blend communities, then maybe people only notice less posts on memes rather than just an empty void.
It’s also a huge discovery problem, some people are going to think there isn’t an active NSQ community, and maybe try making yet another, because the didn’t find the one active community. It’s also possible that there’s 5-10 small/tiny- communities that could become a single thriving community of they were able to actually discover and coordinate with each other.
Discovering new communities that share names and topics will be the biggest core improvement in my opinion. Like having a way for an instance to poll all federated instances for communities with the same name or with a name that includes a term to easily add would be awesome.
Then the ability to combine them into subsets of your siscriptions by whatever topic you want would be awesome. Like instead of subscriptions as a while you could have 'Tabletop Gaming' with various 40k, CAV, BattleTech, and other games grouped how you want or subgroups for each game.
Rule of the defaults. Most people use whatever the default is. That’s why there is always a push to he the default thing. Microsoft pushes edge on their stuff, Google pushes chrome, apps pushes safari, etc.
That’s also why Google pays Apple $20 billion annually to be Safari’s default search engine. Most people can’t be bothered to change their defaults/don’t want to after having it as their default for so long.
I’m not sure whether the issues plaguing Reddit really apply to lemmy, even with a single instance being disproportionately larger than the others, which makes “Reddit 2.0” a bit less derogatory to me. Reddit’s moderator tools were severely lacking for the required output (federation helps diffuse communities, and lemmy doesn’t encourage bots to swarm in order to increase apparent user numbers for investor satisfaction), every big anti-hate decision required a media spectacle to precede it (admins here aren’t free speech absolutists with authoritarian hard-ons), and staff retention at Reddit is an odd loop of promotion into managerial obsolescence which severely increases overhead (irrelevant to lemmy). Reddit 2.0 wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world to me.
This is the correct answer. The devs have been saying this for years but new users often weren’t aware of this and saw it as the default instance. It’s good to see that’s changed.
I think it’s a consequence of higher interest rates drying up VC money, meaning that tech companies now have to actually be profitable, rather than just grow.
If the plan was grow now, profit later, then later has come
Nailed it, investors are demanding profit increases, it’s not just interest rates (though they’re the main reason) but also the corporate tax cuts in 2018 basically dumped a ton of profit onto corporations because they repatriated all their offshore cash they’d been hoarding.
That bump lasted 2 years, but the expectation of higher revenue is still there, it doesn’t matter if you got lucky at slots last month, if you make your normal salary this month investors will be absolutely pissed.
This sounds too stupid to be real but I was working for one of the largest corporations in the world during this period and we were congratulated on 20% growth even though we did nothing. Of course we didn’t get an extra bonus or anything but they acted like we had an incredible year when we really just had an average year with a massive tax cut.
Then the next year, our goal was to grow at 20% again and when we missed it by 17%, no one got a bonus or raise.
Most companies really are that retarded because everyone wants to look good and take credit for every great thing happening. People like that should not be in charge of anything.
This is also a great example of why higher interest rates aren’t automatically a terrible thing. In general, it’s probably a good sign for the economy that companies are expected to be profitable. Means resources are being used well. The limitless VC money kinda meant any dumb idea regardless of merit got funding.
Yeah this is critical. These promises for money later mean that all sorts of stupid ideas were being funded, and therefore people hired, etc, but now that’s coming to a close. Companies and investors will be more likely to scrutinize spending (as they should) and see how to rightsize with reality and line of sight to profit. For significantly more complex reasons, it’s similar to an individual borrowing themselves into crazy debt, and banks eventually determining that they need more than credit/promises to keep seeding you cash.
That’s still the case and high interest rates haven’t really fixed that because they are still not high enough. Just look at how any company mentioning “AI” in their earnings call gets extra billions in market cap overnight without having a real product yet.
I wish we lived in a society where not everything needed to be profitable. People deserve treats and sucks to have things that made our lives better go awake because shareholders demand money
Whether we like the ongoing enshittification of Reddit or not, I think it’s fair that shareholders expect a return on their investment and they have the right to pressure spez to seek aggressive monetization of the platform.
That problem wouldn’t have existed if Reddit was a non-profit though, like the Wikimedia Foundation.
expect a return on their investment and they have the right to pressure spez to seek aggressive monetization of the platform.
Whilst I agree that investors have everybright to expect a return on investment I think this could have been resolved and a number of ways which didn’t include alienating a large proportion of the user base.
I don’t think investors are the ones who told spez how to run things. They likely simply pressured him to make changes as quick as possible to make Reddit profitable. Investors don’t usually specify how to generate that profit though, otherwise they’d run their own companies.
Exactly I’m tired of all these capitalism apologists. The aim is to innovate, there must be a more decent way to monetise or profit. If pursuing such hardline tactics means profitable at the expense of your customers and enshitification of your platform, I’d urge you to reconsider your business setup.
I think in part there’s an essential misunderstanding of current events at the core of Reddit’s behaviour (not yours, I mean - spez/investors/etc).
Historically the rule was supposed to be ‘if it’s free, you’re the product’, which is to say that our attention (and profiles and demographics) were on sale to advertisers. The big recent development is someone figuring out, or thinking they’ve figured out, how to monetise us a different way - specifically, by using the things we create as training data for AI. A sensible organisation would continue to balance these two possible cash flows and, since both really require user retention to remain profitable in the long run, seek a middle ground. But the perception is that there’s more money in the training data than there is in the user attention, so they focus on maximising that and spit on the users. The obvious consequence is that they lose users and their source of training data dries up.
You’re conflating investors, who lent Reddit the money and want a return on it, and spez, who actually runs the business and made those bad decisions. The investors weren’t the ones who told spez how to create the return on investment, they merely pressured him to find a way to do so. Do you think Warren Buffett tells Apple how to run things? I’d be surprised if an old fart like him had any say in how iPhones should be designed or how the Apple Store should operate.
The capitalism apologist is going to tell you that this is necessary for innovation as Venture Capital firms fund 100 start-ups of which 99 fail to turn a profit, and thus the 1 that does has to make up for the other 99 by making extreme profits.
But that that is just as flawed logic as thinking that there can be a “decent” capitalism that doesn’t destroy everything in its path in its pursuit of profit. If you are trying to be “decent” you will be out-competed by someone else under the current economic setup.
The modern Neoliberal capitalist philosophy of shareholders being the only priority, isn’t the only capitalist philosophy.
The Embedded liberalism after the new deal, worked quite well. Since the employees are making the products, and management is making the decisions, while the shareholders don’t directly make anything for the company; People understood that the shareholders were the last priority, in getting profits. It’s why worker wages scaled with productivity until the 80s.
That’s when the Neoliberal capitalist philosophy took hold and gained power. First the Republicans with Regan, then Democrats with Clinton, then the global economy, since so much of it is driven by the US.
You’re right, to some extent, but you have to ask yourself why neoliberalism took hold and gained power. The problem with social democracy, even though it’s the best version of a shitty economic system, is that it’s still capitalism and at some point greedy assholes are going to want more, and will start influencing politics to get what they want. That’s why neoliberalism became a thing, despite the succes of social democracy/embedded liberalism for the 99%, because there still was a 1% with much more power and influence. Neoliberalism was a planned and calculated attack on social democracy decades in the making by groups like the Mont Pelerin Society and individuals like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Reagan was just a public symptom of this disease under the surface. If you keep capitalism in place in any way, it will always eventually trend towards it’s natural endpoint of 0.01% being obscenely, unfathomably rich and the rest getting fucked over in every possible way.
I don’t think the problem is earning a profit, the problem is the need to earn even more profit than last year. Investors aren’t content to buy into a company like Reddit just to let it continue in a steady state. They want to double their money in a few years and then cash out. They don’t care if they destroy a valuable service that many people enjoy.
Twitter has been around for so long, it takes some time to kill. The latest move to allow access only to verified users together with meta may actually kill it though.
There are a number of ways things can function that way. Unfortunately, they don’t scale well.
This is part of my hope of federalisation, it lets a group of small entities act as a single large entity. It also lets non-profit and profit making work together. The for-profit provide the brute force, the non-profits keep them from going off the rails too far. It might be the workaround we need.
Also, be the change you want. For-profit businesses often win due to the far better returns. More people are willing to pour the effort into a business that could make them rich than a charity that never will.
I think we’d see loads of improvements if the philosophy went from “be as profitable as possible” to “just be profitable”. You’re 15% lower than last year, but still profiting? That’s just a smaller bonus for all employees and a smaller dividend for the investors, after putting a healthy amount of it into savings.
There’s no concept of “enough”. That’s the big problem. It goes for both economics and career advancement. There doesn’t always have to be a “higher”. It’s okay to say “it isn’t worth it to go further”.
I don’t think the problem is so much profitability as it is the demand/expectation for endless growth. It becomes a positive feedback loop and is completely unsustainable after a certain point.
This seems like a non sequitur: what is good about only profitable ventures getting funding? These unprofitable ventures were creating good jobs and providing enjoyable and sometimes useful products to consumers for low prices. So why is it good that funding is drying up?
That rather assumes that it actually matters that VC money is being wasted.
After all it keeps the money in circulation and keeps people employed. They then get paid and will then buy useful things from companies that do make profit, so in the end it all works out. It’s only bad for the investors, but that’s always been the thing about investment, it’s always been a risk, and it’s never been guaranteed.
No. I don’t mean to be rude but most of that message is wrong.
VC Money is very much not drying up. 2023 has seen record rounds in most markets. What is drying up is “VC Money for early stage startups with no revenue, no traction, and barely a functional idea”, but even that is not new it has been going on since at least 2018. Remember that guy who raised 1.5M$ with an app that just let you say “Yo” to your contacts ? That was 10 years ago. Those times are dead and buried.
Then the link between VC markets health and interest rates is… contentious to say the least. VCs don’t borrow money - they raise funds from family offices and individual investors, every 2 or 3 years. So every change to the financial landscape will have a progressive effect over 3 years, not a brutal one after a few months. Also you have to bear in mind that the people who bankroll VCs are looking for performance of at least 2X over 10 years. Interests would have to go up to 7% to even be in competition with VC investment. Of course there’s a psychological aspect to investment so the effet is not ZERO but it’s not as automatic as saying “interest go up => vc dry up”.
Finally, the companies we are talking about are in vastly different situations and not necessarily looking for VC money. There is no explaining their behaviour with a single cause, what we’re seeing is probably a cluster effect, because executives are like fish they always follow the movement of the other fish in their field.
Youtube has been profitable for years and is part of Google which is massively profitable. VC Money has no bearing on their decisions - they are in a quasi-monopoly with no credible competition and want to squeeze their users out of greed
Reddit has a long and complicated cap table including some very powerful institutional investors so they are aiming at an IPO rather than more VC money. They’re in a pretty good place actually with 1.5 billion MAU, and in the process of shaking off the 10% of hardcore users who are super hostile to monetization. Their monetization is so low (<2$/month/user, when the competition is 10 to 20 times higher) that they could bear to lose 50% of their userbase and still make bank with the remaining ones. They don’t need VC money right now.
Twitter is… uh… well there’s no telling what Elon is up to but he is absolutely not raising any VC money especially after the shit he’s pulled off since the buy-off. I think it’s just a bunch of bad moves because he’s inept at the social media game.
Their monetization is so low (<2$/month/user, when the competition is 10 to 20 times higher) that they could bear to lose 50% of their userbase and still make bank with the remaining ones.
What’s left unsaid here (but I’m sure you realize) is that these same users whose monetization is so low also provide most of the content and moderation on the site. When you spread out the value of that among the (human) userbase, the total value returned to Reddit by each human is higher.
Steve thought he was targeting the AI with this move, but in reality he has been charging his most engaged users. If he’s upset that Apollo has turned a profit, the correct move was to acknowledge that one guy has done a better job than Reddit’s team, not tell all the users that Apollo helped bring to Reddit that they were no longer welcome
I think they’re operating under the assumption that there is no shortage of people willing to work for clout on a leading social media. They think the users they lose are replaceable and you know what it’s not an unreasonable expectation. It sucks but that’s just the way it is, there will always be people willing to post memes and delete nazi comments.
Only time will tell, but it’s not uncommon to kick out power users when they get uppity and think they run your platform. Way easier/cheaper to fire unpaid volunteers than tech-bros with Silicon Valley salaries.
I’m not so sure about Google nowadays. What started out as an everyday product killing, ended up as the first of many. They killed Stadia from one day to the other, and then started to basically sell and kill everything that is not massively profitable to the point they sold their domain distribution as well to Squarespace. That does not seem like something a massive monopoly with no regards to investor opinion does.
Well i don’t know about that. They still generate 15B$ in profit every quarter. Sure they’re losing some growth, but even amid a historic advertising budget bust they are still beating expectations.
When i mentioned their monopolistic position i was talking more specifically about Youtube, but anyway buying and killing off products is standard operating procedure for a company this size on a market this mature. There’s nothing alarming about Google’s health.
99% of their profit comes from their search engine ad revenue though. Google has only ever had one truly profitable product and the advent of chatgpt, driven by their only true rival in Microsoft, has them scared shitless. They are way behind in the AI department and it’s the only thing out their that fundamentally threatens Googles goose with the golden eggs: their search engine.
Couldn’t it be argued that it’s a mistake from reddit to think of themselves as being comparable to platforms that make more money per user?
For example reddit and youtube are completely different in terms of the nature of the platform. Could attempting to monetize an average reddit user to the level of those using youtube might be a mistake? Keep in mind that reddit has much lower overhead for keeping the service running.
The mental image I’m going after is a country that exports mainly wheat arguing that its’ exports should be valued the same as a country that produces complex electronics. The products are at a different realm of complexity. Commodities should be valued for what they are and not be confused with higly refined products.
Couldn’t it be argued that it’s a mistake from reddit to think of themselves as being comparable to platforms that make more money per user?
You’re right it could very much be argued. I mean isn’t that the whole underlying question ? I would imagine that anybody who invests in reddit has the assumption that yes, you can monetize comparably to other platforms. Or even cut the pear in half and sit comfortably at 10$/user which would already be a fucking money printer at >400M MAU.
Now whether they are right or wrong in their thesis is anybody’s guess. Even after the recent debacle reddit is still in a very good position, but social media is such a clown world that you can never really tell.
maybe inflation.
just because U don’t see a price tag doesnt mean its not there.
if you cant see the product, then you are the product!
the state of wellbeing had never really been that great to start.
I don’t use them for most things I install but proprietary apps I want sandboxed or programs that have weird issues with dependencies I grab the flatpak.
I use Ansible all day. For work. Oh, god, is it sad compared to everything else in the space. RedHat had the choice between two in-house products and they chose poorly.
It can do lots of configuration and [set up] and install flatpaks.
We had that 20 years ago, just with a different product. The state of the art is now two generations newer.
Well I know Ansible and it works for my needs. I briefly used Nix and it was worse. Ansible is nice because you can just install ansible and then apply a playbook.
For me on Arch, Flatpaks are kinda useless. I can maybe see the appeal for other distros but Arch already has up-to-date versions of everything and anything that’s missing from the main repos is in the AUR.
I also don’t like how it’s a separate package manager, they take up more space, and to run things from the CLI it’s flatpak run com.website.Something instead of just something. It’s super cumbersome compared to using normal packages.
I also prefer to get my software from the distro’s repos, but for software from third parties, flatpak adds a security layer, making it more secure when compared, for example, to aur.
COVID factored in because the handful of corporations that own a shit ton of companies figured out 8% inflation could be used as justification to double/triple prices, and if they all did it, consumers had no options.
In regulated capitalism, the government would step in to prevent this type of price fixing.
But when both political parties are “pro business” and take donations from those huge corporations…
Then corporations get away with lots they shouldn’t
I looked at some of those, and it’s private citizens suing corporations…
Even the rent one with the DOJ, it’s just them becoming involved in private lawsuits…
That’s not the same as the government regulating capitalism.
And while that one is sort of related to the topic, not really. It’s because the price fixing is automated by a computer program a bunch of landlords used.
In the future if you only give one link and some kind of explanation other than “like this?” The person you replied to can probably do a better job of helping you understand.
But the government doesn’t regulate capitalism, they are owned by the capitalists. So many laws exist because corporations paid for them to, moreso in recent years but it was still bad 50+ years ago, just look at how successful the tobacco industry is.
The US has this bizarre setup where we “regulate” companies through the courts rather than directly through government agencies (this is not always the case, but it often is). The problem is that even when this “works”, i.e., the court punishes the company, they get a fine. So it becomes a financial decision: if we can get away with this, does that outweigh the risk that we might not? Sometimes it ends up profiting the company regardless.
Related to this is that prosecutors have total discretion in the realm of plea deals. If you do a crime here, it becomes a negotiation with the prosecutor. What can you offer them to get off the hook? Sometimes it makes sense to do a crime, because the advantages you gain become leverage to negotiate your way out of punishment.
The US has this bizarre setup where we “regulate” companies through the courts rather than directly through government agencies (this is not always the case, but it often is).
I’m afraid that I don’t understand what sort of alternative system you have in mind.
Basically do what Europe does. Government regulators actively monitor companies and stop them from misbehaving, rather than waiting for them to misbehave and then sue them. If they don’t follow regulations they get disbanded. It’s not perfect but it’s better than what we have here.
Related to this is that prosecutors have total discretion in the realm of plea deals. If you do a crime here, it becomes a negotiation with the prosecutor.
I agree with you. The justice system should not be “let’s make a deal.”
I don’t even see it as marking territory or ownership since that isn’t what they are doing.
They’re communicating with other dogs when they sniff and pee; so I look at it like scrolling social media. They’re just on PissBook. When they sniff, they’re reading. When they pee, they’re commenting. When they take a dump, they’re literally shitposting.
That’s very interesting. So when dogs meet and sniff each other’s butts, do they recognize the scent and go “hey, you’re that dog whose daily walks cross path with mine!”?
That the vagina is way lower than a lot of people depict it. A lot of my anatomy exposure when I was younger was hentai, and it turns out hentai artists don’t really know where the vagina is either. The ones that put the vagina as the little sister of the belly button on the woman desperately need to look up their Year 9 health book.
So true. I had some real surprises when I first got to explore the anatomy of an actual girl, despite having had reasonably good sex ed in school. Not that I got my information from hentai though, that just wasn’t a thing at the time.
Ah yes, the first time you reach your hand into a girls pants expecting to find things where your penis is… and you get nothing, and you try to play it off casually but in your mind your freaking out thinking she’s a real life Barbie doll.
Yep, I used to think that vaginas were exactly the same height (proportionally) as the penis, such that intercourse could technically be achieved by walking straight towards eachother with the penis held high. It cerainly was an interesting exploration the first time I attempted to find my way.
Its sort of similar with your ass. Its always portrayed as “s-shaped” sorta and/or sideways (like a tailpipe on a car) when its…sorta more…south originating and facing than fhat…ya
Some of the worst people I’ve worked with are “burners”.
There’s apparently a private jet at burning man this year that was taking off and landing constantly so that people could fuck on the jet - it’s fall of Rome style excess in a broken world where most people’s basic needs are not met on an enormous scale.
Your statement is fairly tone deaf to the basic objective reality of the “party”, OP. The frustrated people at the bottom are feeling a bit of catharsis in the money burning factory closing for a day while they starve and watch.
If someone falls asleep inside the giant puppet and they burn him alive with everyone gathered around, I’m sorry but that’s just very funny. Dark, but funny.
People pay every month but most don’t use the sub to it’s full value, and forget how expensive it becomes over the years. And you don’t own anything on a subscription, you just borrow it.
Also trial periods that prolong automatically into subscriptions.
I was really surprised when I shipping forwarder I use after I upgraded from the “free” tier to the $10/month tier to save a few hundred dollars of state taxes, when I downgraded back to their “free” tier five days later once the package was out of their hands, the answer was “Your subscription will end at the end of your current paid month”
Yup, BandCamp all the way. Once you buy a song you own it, you can play it anywhere you darn well please. Even if BandCamp goes under, no worries, still got my music.
Same with DVDs. Yeah, I’ve definitely gotten movies I regret purchasing, but I think long-term it’s more economical.
JFK doesn’t. He never appeared, at least not in any of the episodes before the latest reboot. One can only assume that JFK got assassinated in the Futurama timeline as well, so there wasn’t enough of his head to put in a jar.
Lincoln was shot in the back, not the head, so I guess that’s how he got there.
Just a reminder to our American cousins that in British English, trump means the noise an elephant makes but also to fart: “Sorry I trumped.” Donald the Trump is a noisy noxious unwanted thing on the world stage.
Sideshow Bob is actually an eloquent speaker, and is more the psychopathic kinda crazy, not the “Right now, Obama is spying on me through the microwave!”
Out of curiosity, let’s say I’m a video game developer and I make games by myself (no team). I have a hit success and sell 300 milion copies worldwide for an average of $20 a piece and am now a billionaire.
Was that money stolen or exploited? If so, how? If not, how does that jive with your stated position?
I think you misunderstand me. I don’t strictly disagree with anything you’ve said. I’m not sure that I’m on the 100% tax above a certain threshold idea, but I’m not terrible interested in debating it one way or another.
The point I was interested in was what makes it inherently exploitative to earn that much money? You repeat the claim (and clarify) that making anything above 10mil is exploitative, but what I’m curious about is the justification.
Typically, my understanding of when people say billionaires exploited the working class, it’s because they are pocketing the excess value of those that they employ. But we have real world cases of billionaires who employ no one.
In those cases, what have they done that is exploitative?
And to further clarify. I’m not asking why it’s unjust from an equity standpoint. I’m not asking why it would be better if that wealth was taxed. I’m specifically asking after the word exploitative.
You are talking about Minecraft level success and even that took many years of success and being bought by one of the largest companies in the world to reach that many sells.
I am talking about that level of success, yes. I in fact was using it’s numbers and exact case information, lol.
Notch is a billionaire. The original claim was that no one becomes a billionaire without stealing or exploiting the value of the work of the laborers. My question then is, the value of whose labor did Notch steal or exploit to become a billionaire?
Note: He is also an awful person, so setting that aside for the moment. He’s not awful in a way that directly relates to the question at hand.
So really he made his money from selling his company, not just from the game sales itself. And I would argue that he more or less got lucky more than he “earned” it, which I think he has said as much in interviews before.
I can’t really speak to if he directly exploited labor, but I think we can pretty safely state that Microsoft has in fact done so repeatedly, and so indirectly at least, Notch benefited from that as well.
Now does that make him morally corrupt for taking that offer? Maybe. But I think any one of us would take the same offer if given the chance. But the reality of the situation is that getting rich from this kind of success is very slim, and even then the labor and effort involved is very much disproportionate to what others are earning for much more effort. And if he was taxed at a rate where is was no longer a billionaire, but just a millionaire, then his quality of life very likely won’t change too much while many other people would benefit, assuming that tax money is actually going to public services, that is.
The issue I’d take with that is that it’s hardly any more or less “luck” than any other billionaire.
There’s less than 3000 billionaires in the world. It’s not like the other 2999 were wildly more qualified and had the perfect strategy that inevitably and directly led to their billionaire status.
And while he did become a billionaire by selling to Microsoft, he would have even without that most likely. The game has sold enough copies that it would have made him a billionaire, even without the sale to Microsoft.
And I think it’s unfair, even if that wasn’t the case, to lay the sins of the buyer at the feet of the seller, when the seller isn’t otherwise doing anything wrong. It’s basically the “no ethical consumption under capitalism” thing. There is no one he could sell to that wouldn’t be “unethical”, and therefore he’d be morally obligated to never sell it to anyone. He’s as “morally corrupt” for that as any of us are when we shop at a grocery store or buy/rent housing.
And I said it elsewhere, I am in no way arguing against him being appropriately taxed on this income (or potentially standing wealth). I simply push back on the idea that billionaires can only become such by being morally bankrupt exploiters who stomp on the heads of millions of the proletariat to get where they are.
Are there some like that? Absolutely. Is it the vast majority? Depends on how you define “stomping on the heads of the proletariat,” but it’s probably a good chunk at minimum. But the only requirement is luck. Not cruelty or exploitation.
I’m all for progression tax structures. I’m all for taxing the rich. But statements like “all billionaires got their money by exploiting the poor” makes one look, at best, uncritical of your own positions. It’s counterfactual name calling of the out-tribe, the same as calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi.
Every billionaire are where they are at by being at least somewhat lucky. In a lot of cases they are simply lucky enough to be born to the right family. Some have worked to get where they are, but its not just hard work or effort that got them there.
And I would argue that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and I would also argue that that is the case for just about any other societal system as well. After all, none of us can live without being a burden or hurting others at some point. That’s life. Its also more or less the concept of “original sin” that Christians go on about. Its fine to acknowledge that and only by doing so can society at large takes steps to reduce systematic harm where we can.
That being said, billionaires, by having more capital, have more power and influence under capitalism, so it can be argued that they get a larger part of the blame for systematic issues, especially as many of them do utilize their power to maintain the status quo or push for more harmful systematic policies. And the ones that aren’t actively pushing such policies are still benefiting from such policies. And they could donate their fortunes to charitable causes, but in my opinion that’s not something that we should have to rely on them doing and does nothing to solve the systematic issues at play.
At the end of the day, it’s its not as if its a black and white issue, but the statement that no one “earned” a billion dollars is largely true in the sense that if you work hard or put in the effort, you can make it. Even in Notch’s case, if he didn’t decide to sale to Microsoft, maybe he might still be a billionaire today, but would he have earned it himself? Its not like he was the only one working on the game even when he sold the company. I’m not sure what the compensation the others working at Mojang got, but if he continued to independently develop Minecraft, getting to 300 million sales requires significant development effort between porting the game to various platforms and ongoing content updates. If he ended up getting the majority of the payout, then he would have very likely did it at the disproportionately at the expense of other’s effort.
A billion dollars is a lot of money. Like a lot of money. I don’t necessary think its wrong to have the opinion that billionaires shouldn’t exist. At least in the system we have today. Now, I’d say that its the system that’s the problem, not necessary any individual billionaire, but if they get to wieild the power that comes with their fortune, then its fair to have more blame for it as well.
I don’t disagree with a single thing you have just said, nor have I. But then, based on all that, would you agree then that the sentence “[A billion dollars] can only be stolen and exploited from other peoples’ labor” is counterfactual?
Because that’s the only point I’m making. I’m with you on the additional social responsibility that should be encumbant upon billionaires. I’m with you on fixing systematic issues that allow them to exist.
My one and only point for this whole thread is that you can be a billionaire without “stealing and exploiting other people’s labor.”
I think what we are getting to is the semantics of it. Theoretically, it should be possible to be a billionaire without stealing and exploitation. I think that in reality though, a billion dollars is so much money that’s its hard to see how a single person can amass that much wealth without being exploitative, intentionally or not. Even if you were given that much money, holding onto it would require investing into a system that is rife with exploitation.
I’ll admit that I’m by no means an expert on billionaires and there might exist some that made their fortune without exploitation. And I’m including indirect exploitation here. Maybe that’s another point of semantics, but its one that I feel very much matters in this context.
I don’t think this is semantic though. The initial post said that “Nobody earns a billion dollars. It can only be stolen and exploited from other peoples’ labor.”
That statement does not read as “they were at least involved indirectly in some behavior at some point in their life that was in some way unethical.” It is purporting a direct relationship between their achieving a billion dollars and an active exploitation of others direct labor. That is why I pushed back against it.
And here is my issue with including indirect exploitation in the consideration. It vastly waters down culpability. A billionaire is just as guilty of indirect exploitation as you or me or the Pope. There is literally no action at all that one can take that I couldn’t make some argument for being a form of indirect exploitation. So when you say that billionaires are exploitative for indirect exploitation reasons, it seems churlish. It loses all meaning because it’s basically tautologically true. Why should I care about it if the person telling me that the billionaire is exploiting people is actively and continuously engaging in the exact same type of exploitation?
Because a billionaire isn’t “just as guilty” in an exploitative system. They are more guilty because they benefit more and they have more power due to their capital. If you can’t see that, then I guess we won’t ever agree.
Do you have a job? If so, you should know how hard it is to earn money. The level of effort required to even get minimum wage is usually astounding. And maybe you went to school and learned to do more skilled jobs, so you don’t have to work as hard as a minimum wage laborer. Maybe you can justify it as being smarter or more skilled and that’s fine. But do you think someone that “earned” a billion dollars actually worked ten thousand times harder than someone who earns 100k. Or a thousand times harder than someone that earned a million dollars. Or are that much smarter or more skilled?
In your original example, you talk about how and individual could make a game that could get 300 million in sales while ignoring that vast amount of effort it realistically takes to do so. Way more effort than a single individual person can do. Getting to those kinds of sales would take the effort of many people, so if a single person benefits more than the others involved in that effort, then they did so by exploitation of their labor.
But if becoming a billionaire is truly just luck, then what are they to do? If I gave you a billion dollars right now, out of the blue, no strings attached, are you now morally bankrupt because you’re a billionaire?
What if you leverage your power and capital to affect positive change (like Bill Gates for instance)? Do you still deserve the guillotine?
If you bankrupt yourself by giving every American a one time 4 dollar payout ($4 × 300mil Americans), are you now clean, or did you waste your chance to make a meaningful difference with your power and capital?
What exactly would you have to see Notch do now or have done in the past to make him not the villain in this narrative? What can he or could he have done to be morally in the right?
I’m not calling to break out the guillotine. Just the acknowledgment that the system is flawed and support initiatives to minimize exploitation and pay their labor fairly where they can. At the very least stop using their capital to support initiatives that only support growing their own capital at the expense of others.
But we’re talking about this in the context of a thread that started with the claim that all billionaires are morally bankrupt (paraphrasing).
I agree with you that the system is flawed, but if the stance you’re taking is that there is literally no set of actions before or after becoming a billionaire that someone could take that makes them not morally bankrupt, then maybe the initial position is flawed at best and useless at worst?
Not to repeat myself again, but *I agree that labor should be fairly compensated and that systems need to be fixed to reduce inequality, and I am in no way shape or form stating otherwise.*I feel like this conversation keeps going in loops, where I say that it’s self defeating to state falsehoods in defense of advocating for systemic change, and you countering with “but there needs to be systemic changes!”
We’re on the same page in that regard. I have exactly one point, and it’s that if we agree that the statement that all billionaires are necessarily morally bankrupt is false, then we should stop using it to support our advocacy, as it is merely an additional reason to dismiss said advocacy.
The claim was that billionaires shouldn’t exist and that to get that amount of money requires exploitation. You are the one taking that to mean that they are automatically morally bankrupt. I have broken down my more nuanced take that you seem to mostly agree on, so I guess I’m not sure why you are continuing to push on this one point. No one has called for actually punishing billionaires for this in this specific comment chain; I know that opinion is all over elsewhere, but that’s not relevant to what we have been discussing.
Personally speaking, I’m doing okay under the current system, I recognize where my labor is and has been exploited and am lucky enough myself to get by with what leverage I have. But I recognize that I’m just one bad accident from losing my livelihood and not being able to provide for me and my family. And if the wealth gap continues growing, then billionaires, or the owning capital class in general, should be worried about violence against them. And if that day comes, I for sure ain’t sticking my neck out for some fucking billionaire.
At the end of the day, we can disagree on messaging, but I’ll leave that to proper organizations to get the message right and try to support them when I see them to hopefully turn things around before it turns to violence. But we’re not going to convince anyone here by just getting the perfect message for the masses.
You are right that we seem to be talking in circles, so I’m done here. Going to GI back to enjoying the rest of my weekend and I hope you have a good one.
Yeah, the only thing I’d push back on is why I keep harping on that one point. I think that’s been the whole cycle here. I’ve been saying, “I think X,” which has been responded to with a “here’s a more nuanced and detailed TUVWYZ,” to which I respond with, “yeah, I agree with you on all those letters, but I’m specifically talking about X.” And then the loop goes around again. I’m “continuing to push this one point” because it was the point I opened with and the only one that mattered for the purposes of the discussion at hand.
But, all that said, I’m not too worked up about it, and I agree this has gone on longer than it probably should have. Not everyone needs to agree on everything, and I think this issue, while a pet peeve of mine, is ultimately small in the grand scheme of things.
Hope your weekend has continued well, and I’ll get back to enjoying mine as well. :)
You’re right that the claim that “being a billionaire requires exploitation” is massively oversimplified. But the situation you’ve described is essentially winning the lottery. Yeah, you put the time into think of, and execute on an idea, but everything else, from having the time to work on a possible flop, to it being a hit with 300 million people is ultra luck-based. 1000 people could do the exact same thing, and 1 might hit it big. It’s gambling.
A more accurate phrasing of the original statement is: the only way to reliably amass billions of dollars in wealth is to exploit a supply/demand gap to the point of unsustainability.
A small business that operates with integrity, prioritizes the wellbeing of their society over their profits, doesn’t price gouge, and doesn’t discourage healthy competition will never become worth billions. They will always lose to competition that is willing and allowed to forego ethics for profits.
So 100 people could try your strategy of making a game that goes viral, and none of them are going to do it, most probably won’t even make a profit. But then 100 people could try the strategy of exploitation, and they’re going to reliably turn a profit. We allow a society where exploitation is a good investment.
Regardless of what people think of Peter Thiel he says out loud exactly what is wrong with late-stage capitalism: competition is for losers.
Firstly, it’s no more luck based than any other method. There are less than 3000 billionaires in the world. If there was an even pseudo-reliable system to become a billionaire, there would be more than 0.00004% of the population who’ve managed it.
And selling a popular video game is just as much “exploiting a supply/demand gap” as any other method. You have an effective monopoly on an asset that people want.
All that to say, I’m pushing back on the “massively oversimplified,” because it’s not, it’s just counterfactual.
I wouldn’t have minded if the OP had said “the overwhelming majority of billionaires got there by exploiting the working class.” That’s just as “massively oversimplified” as what they did say, but isn’t objectively false.
You’re not describing a situation where your made a series of investments with a high ROI, you’re describing a “one-hit-wonder” scenario. Ask any successful game developer and they’ll all (sorry, the overwhelming majority will) tell you that making a viral game as you’ve described is hugely luck-based.
Similarly, all (sorry, the overwhelming majority) of those 3000 billionaires would agree that you don’t amass their amount of wealth via a one-hit-wonder. Yes, it involves the fortune of having the opportunity to exploit others (usually born to already wealthy families), but then also requires a pattern of exploitation (I think they’ll be less willing to admit that one. Maybe Theil would.)
If you’d like to adjust your hypothetical scenario to not be based off of a one-hit-wonder, and instead model a sustainable pattern of good investments, go for it. But I believe I’ve already addressed that possibility with my “small business” example in the previous post. It simply doesn’t happen.
Yes, anything that turns a profit is based on a supply/demand gap, the key word I used was “unsustainablely”. I’m not talking about selling a video game for $100 when players want to pay $20, I’m talking about selling the cure for a disease for $10000 when it costs $1 to make. Price gouging. Exploitation.
So, I just looked at the list of the top ten billionaires. It includes: Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook (one hit wonder) Jeff Bezos: Amazon (one hit wonder) Bill Gates: Microsoft (one hit wonder) Larry Page: Google (one hit wonder)
There are several other examples in the top ten list that are lesser known but also one hit wonders, but even if there weren’t, that’s 40% right there.
I suppose you could argue that those companies do more than one thing, especially Google, but the vast majority of the cash flow for each is behind one product or line of products.
The only differentiator between any of them and Notch is that Notch was a one man team, and therefore wasn’t “exploiting the capital generated by his employees.”
And let’s be real here. You say that a small business can’t grow to be a multi-billion dollar business? Tell that to literally any of the above. Microsoft started in Gates garage. Facebook was a college project. Almost all businesses start as small mom-and-pop shops. Some do in fact become multi-billion dollar businesses. Just not the vast majority because, again, it’s based on luck.
And look, you keep circling back to try and paint what I’m saying as “it’s fine for billionaires to price gouge medicine and stomp homeless people to death” or something. That’s not what I’m saying no matter how many times you circle back to it.
To repeat ad nauseum, the only point I’m making is that it’s in fact possible to become a billionaire without exploiting other people’s labor. Full stop. No other point beside that. If we agree on that point, then we are fully in agreement. That is, again, the only point I’m arguing.
I just looked at the list of the top ten billionaires. It includes: Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook (one hit wonder) Jeff Bezos: Amazon (one hit wonder) Bill Gates: Microsoft (one hit wonder) Larry Page: Google (one hit wonder)
Not a single one of these hit billionaire status via a one-hit-wonder. Every single one of them did so via a pattern of exploitation.
Sure, some of them might have had a one-hit-wonder that resulted in their first few million. But to keep climbing past a billion required steady, consistent, methodical, unethical exploitation and anti-competative practices. These are the poster-children for exploitative billionaires in our society.
You say that a small business can’t grow to be a multi-billion dollar business? Tell that to literally any of the above.
I didn’t say that. I said that (the overwhelming majority of) small businesses cannot become a billionaire company without a pattern of exploitation.
the only point I’m making is that it’s in fact possible to become a billionaire without exploiting other people’s labor…If we agree on that point, then we are fully in agreement.
Sure, it’s theoretically possible. But that might account for less than 1% of currently living billionaires, if any at all. Do we agree?
Sure, it’s theoretically possible. But that might account for less than 1% of currently living billionaires, if any at all.
Tempting to agree on the less than 1%.
Regarding millionaires, not billionaires, I can only think of one who sold a business and then started a Linux distribution : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth
Heh Canonical is a funny example, considering most Linux users steer clear of it because of it’s arguably exploitative practices in an effort to remain profitable.
I do think most, if not all billionaires have convinced themselves the ends justify their means. Zuck thinks he’s “connecting the world”. Bezos probably thinks the same thing Sam Walton did. Musk thinks he’s ushering in the next stage of humanity. On some level I’m sympathetic to Ubuntu’s cause; all tech companies harvest your data for profit, why not leverage that technique in order to bootstrap the prevalence of a FOSS platform.
But the point is, that’s just what has to happen to amass that level of wealth in the society we live in. You can be as noble as you want, you can get lucky and find yourself in a pile of cash, but to steadily climb that ladder to the billion+ territory will require you to exploit or be exploited.
Absolutely I’m willing to agree to that.
I am only pushing back on the statement, “it is impossible to amass a billion dollars without exploiting the labor of the working class.”
I certainly don’t think that’s the majority of billionaires. If your definition of exploiting the labor of the working class includes “having any employees that aren’t part owners of the business,” then of course the number of billionaires who can say that is vanishingly small.
But they do in fact exist, and I think the majority of people are aware of that. Therefore, making statements like “all billionaires exploited labor” makes the average person think your position is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worst.
I think there is a slightly different claim we’re each making, and it’s confused by the term “billion”. I think we both agree that it’s an arbitrary value that was used in the interest of an oversimplified claim above, but I think we can disambiguate the points we’re making if we generalize it.
Your statement that “it is possible to be an X-aire without exploitation of the working class” is technically correct for the value of X=billion.
But I think the claim I’m making (and the oversimplified claim that was originally made) is that: for any given point in time, in any given capitalist society, there is a value X beyond which you cannot reliably amass and retain wealth without unethical exploitation.
The post above set X at a billion, maybe it’s not a billion, maybe it’s 100 billion. 100 years ago maybe it was 100 million, and in 100 years it’ll be 100 trillion. But the point is that there exists a value beyond which ONLY exploitative practices can get you; or in other words, you will never be the richest man in our late-stage capitalist society by winning the lottery or through steady, ethical investments.
Man, I feel like we reached an agreement and now you’re trying to walk it back. :P
And while I don’t necessarily disagree with the point you’re making, it feels like a setup to goal shift. Like, any example that gets brought up to counter the narrative can now just be dismissed as, “oh, but he’s not enough of a billionaire.”
And let’s be real, a billion dollars, right now, is almost certainly beyond that arbitrary dollar amount X you speak of. There’s only 3000 of them in the world! The *world! There’s 8 trillion of us. How much more selective do we need to be??
Yeah, I know it sounds like a goal post movement, but I didn’t make the original claim, and in fact thought the original claim was oversimplified, but that there was a truth to it. I think that in order to best illustrate that truth, “billion” had to be removed as it was a red herring.
And yeah the first half of it sounds like I’m setting a variable X, where X makes me right, but the fact that such an X exists is the point I’m making. If you agree then we’re on the same page. The alternate claim would be that it’s possible in our late stage capitalist society to be the richest person using purely ethical, non-exploitative means, which I don’t believe is possible. And for a value of X=a billion, I think it’s just very unlikely.
I mean, I certainly think it’s possible to become the richest man on earth through purely ethical means. It’s wildly, incredibly unlikely, but strictly possible.
You could become a recording artist that self publishes your own music, only distribute online, and become unprecedented levels of popular. Sell each mp3 for $5 and sell a few trillion of them.
Is that likely? Absolutely not. Exceedingly unlikely. But becoming a muliti-billionaire in general is exceedingly unlikely. This is one of the lesser likely ways for sure, but it’s fathomable, at least in the sense that it’s a coherent narrative that strictly could occur.
What about that scenario is strictly impossible? Not vanishingly unlikely, but literally could not happen?
I assume you’re going for the “is it impossible, or just highly improbable” route again. Is the musician example intended to be something that is possible? Do you think that example is possible? I think that even healthy, sustainable competition would prevent that example from ever happening. Which is part of the point: if you only have ethically run businesses, you’ll always have healthy competition, and thus none of them can ever reach such an absurd amount of wealth over the others.
But let’s say you’re an unethical multi billion dollar corporation in the music industry whose bottom line is being impacted, and you’re willing to do whatever to get part of that. Let me ask you, what would you do to get your piece of the pie? Feel free to just look around for inspiration :(. You’d likely start by offering to buy them out. If they refuse you have several options: creating a copycat that sounds similar, but pump out 10x more tracks to flood the market, pay off all “radio stations” (whatever companies you pay to stream music in random stores and clubs, etc) to prioritize your music, pay SEO professionals to ensure your products appear before yours, pay lawyers to find something to litigate over to stun your ability to make any more music. Someone who is actually in the music industry could probably come up with better ideas than me, but the point is, a company willing and allowed to play unethically will always beat out the ones that aren’t.
I mean, artistry is inherently popularity driven, and we can see how knock offs rarely impact the demand for the original.
Damn, how many Minecraft or Minecraft adjacent games have come out in the last 15yrs? Have any of them made any dent in it’s sales?
Look, you’ve set up a motte and bailey here. If I point to any example that concretely exists in real life, like Minecraft, you’ll just say that the “X” wealth value is too low. If I say a hypothetical that doesn’t exist, you’ll say it’s an impossibility. You’re effectively asking me to prove a negative here.
If you truly, in your wildest imagination, can’t think of a single way, no matter how extremely and unbelievably unlikely, that someone could become the wealthiest person on earth without exploiting the labor of others, I’m happy to agree to disagree on the issue. But it seems like that’s more a lack of imagination on your part than anything.
Hell, here’s a simple one. Elon Musk decides to will his entire fortune to a random stranger drawn by lottery, you end up winning, and then he dies. Congrats, you’re now the richest person on earth. Did you exploit someone’s labor to get that money?
All money on earth has at some point belonged to someone who did, and I’m not culpable because the $20 bill in my wallet was once probably owned by Jeff Bezos (or, you know, someone who’s dead and evil). Are you now responsible for every ill thing that Elon Musk has done because you won his death lottery? Did you commit some evil acts on your path to becoming the richest person on earth?
If you truly, in your wildest imagination, can’t think of a single way, no matter how extremely and unbelievably unlikely, that someone could become the wealthiest person on earth without exploiting the labor of others, I’m happy to agree to disagree on the issue.
So wouldn’t you be relying on the unfalsifyability of your claim? Reminds me of Russell’s Teapot. Your claim is that there is a vanishingly small, yet unprovably non-zero chance of something being true, therefore your claim must be true. I’m ok with conceding that.
But it seems like that’s more a lack of imagination on your part than anything.
I never said I was imaginative :D
Hell, here’s a simple one. Elon Musk decides to will his entire fortune to a random stranger drawn by lottery, you end up winning, and then he dies. Congrats, you’re now the richest person on earth. Did you exploit someone’s labor to get that money?
That’s the lottery example again. It sounds like we both agree it was accrued unethically, but would you agree that for such a person who is handed that wealth to maintain it, they would need to behave unethically?
All money on earth has at some point belonged to someone who did, and I’m not culpable because the $20 bill in my wallet was once probably owned by Jeff Bezos (or, you know, someone who’s dead and evil). Are you now responsible for every ill thing that Elon Musk has done because you won his death lottery?
I think we’ve now both accused the other of Russel’s teapot, lol. Your claim that it’s impossible to ethically become a muliti-billionaire is equally unfalsifiable, at least feasibly. I don’t feel like I’m claiming anything absurd here. If you won a lottery that made you the richest person on earth (that was in some way devoid of any of the ethics concerns of the normal lottery system), then you would have become the richest person ethically. Or, at least, without having exploited excess value of other people’s labor.
This isn’t a Russel’s Teapot because I’m arguing for a logical construction, not a point of fact. I’m not saying that such a person exists and you can’t prove they don’t. I’m arguing that it’s almost tautologically true that if those events could happen, then my position holds water. I’m only arguing that it’s within the bounds of the possible.
As for maintaining the money in a way that’s ethical, sure, why not. Just throw it into a savings account that earns 2%/yr. Split it among a ton of banks and credit unions to stay within the FDIC insurance limits where possible. If you have 200billion dollars, that’s 4billion a year to live on. Seems pretty easy to maintain your wealth that way. Am I missing something there?
I don’t know what you’re driving at with the “slippery slope” statement? Do you think I’m advocating that we should all be held accountable for the crimes of every dollar we have ever had in our possession? Or are you trying to imply that I’m arguing for always taking money indiscriminately? Regardless, I think it’s reaching pretty hard in either direction.
I’m arguing that it’s almost tautologically true that if those events could happen, then my position holds water. I’m only arguing that it’s within the bounds of the possible.
But I think we’re still talking past each other. Imagine a contrived situation where people are picking apples, and each have their own basket they’re collecting them in, and their own strategy for collecting them. I’m saying that person A’s strategy will never result in them having the most apples, and to me it sounds like you’re saying “well if they happen upon a secret trove of apples, then they would have the most apples”. Which, yeah, you’re right, but that’s not my point.
Or like how the optimal strategy to the Secretary Problem is to search ~37% of applicants without accepting, and then take the first one that is better than all of them. No, you’re not guaranteed to accept the best applicant, but it’s still provably the best strategy for any random set of applicants.
Seems pretty easy to maintain your wealth that way. Am I missing something there?
You would not remain the richest person in the world with that strategy, any other strategy that gains more than 2%/yr would overtake you.
Edit: I probably am moving goal posts here at this point, but you are helping me refine what it is I’m actually trying to say. I agree that ethical behavior could theoretically result in the most profits, but I’m also convinced that it is not even close to the winning strategy in our current society.
The issue is that your example fails to be analogous in that no one has ever had a winning strategy to becoming a billionaire. If there was an implementable strategy that anyone could do if they were unethical enough, there would be a hell of a lot more than 3000 of them in the world.
The only way to become a big-apple-person in your example is to find the treasure trove. You aren’t physically capable of beating people up quick enough to steal all their apples. No current billionaire strategized their way into that position. They all found the apple lotto pile. Sometimes that pile is called Minecraft, and sometimes it’s called Amazon, but they all became billionaires by finding a giant pile of apples.
And absolutely not on any strategy that makes more than 2% overtaking you. If I have 200billion dollars, at 2%, and you have 1billion at 10%, it’s gonna take you nearly half a century to even reach my starting balance. Yeah, sure, you’ll overtake me eventually, but that’s more likely to happen because I died than because you ended up making more money than me.
And this is once again you moving the goalposts. What does it mean to “maintain that level of wealth”? Stay the richest for 5 years? 10? 20? 100? Your whole life? What if I die the day after I got the money? Do I have to invent an immortality potion to ever be able to claim to have “maintained” it? If you are unwilling to define what you mean by that, I’ll just be aiming for an ever expanding, nebulous, “that’s not quite enough.”
I still maintain that I didn’t set the original goalposts, but yeah, I hoped I had made my edit in time for you to read it. I’m enjoying the respectful discussion, regardless.
no one has ever had a winning strategy to becoming a billionaire.
If that were true, wouldn’t there not exist any billionaires?
If there was an implementable strategy that anyone could do if they were unethical enough, there would be a hell of a lot more than 3000 of them in the world.
Not if the game is zero-sum, the initial conditions for each participant are randomized, and some execute the strategy better than others. You can take the 100 best battle royale players in the world, all of them execute their strategy perfectly, but at the end of the day they can’t all be winners as defined by the parameters of the game. In the real world the parameters aren’t clearly delineated, I’d say the limit on the number of excessively rich people possible is emergent based on various factors (laws, how unethical parties are willing to be, amount of value being generated, etc.).
(And to head off the “how can you say zero-sum, but also wealth is being generated?”. If the volume of exchanges of value between parties exceeds the amount of value being generated, then there is effectively always a cap that parties have to operate within, thus it is effectively a zero-sum system for those parties despite total value in the system increasing.)
The apple gathering metaphor was intended to convey my point about the difference between a wealth gain attributed strategy vs good fortune. We would need to extend it quite a bit to talk in terms of ethical apple picking, at which point I think we would just be talking about actual dollars.
No current billionaire strategized their way into that position. They all found the apple lotto pile.
And we’ve circled back to where we disagree. “Billion” (or rather, X) doesn’t happen purely by chance. There exists a value over-which you cannot get purely by chance, it takes unethical exploitation, and there are people beyond that value.
What does it mean to “maintain that level of wealth”? Stay the richest for 5 years? 10? 20? 100? Your whole life?
This seems like a red herring. The rate of change that employing a certain strategy gets you is the more relevant quantity. An unethical strategy will diverge into unreasonable amounts of wealth territory, whereas an ethical one won’t ever (and I have to keep saying, in this late-stage capitalist society.)
Of course billionaires can exist without having a winning strategy. Notch didn’t set out to be a Billionaire. He just played infiniminer and thought it was cool, so he asked Zach Barth if he could make a spinoff. Facebook was started because Zuckerberg was trying to trick a chick into sleeping with him. These billionaires didn’t have some Machiavellian scheme to become billionaires. They just made a thing that happened to dominate their respective industries. It happens when someone is first to market in a field that is prone to natural monopolies.
And of course money is a zero sum game. There’s a limited amount of currency in circulation. That’s true on it’s face (ignoring government’s creating more, etc.)
But I think the issue that we are actually disagreeing on is your claim that someone can’t get more than X dollars by chance.
My counter to that is, “sure they can, by winning an X+1 dollar lottery.” And I don’t think you’ve made any sort of counter to that point other than, “yeah, but they couldn’t keep it without being unethical,” without ever providing a timeframe that you would consider sufficient to meet the definition of “keeping it.”
Notch isn’t a good example to bring up because, like the other lottery winners, they’re the exception, not the rule. And again, Zuckerberg didn’t become a billionaire from his initial rollout, that took years of deliberate decision making. Can we agree on that?
Regardless of their goals, they executed a strategy that directly resulted in them being billionaires. It wasn’t random, it was years of decisions they actively made.
My counter to that is, “sure they can, by winning an X+1 dollar lottery.” And I don’t think you’ve made any sort of counter to that point
My counter was the apple picking example. When discussing the viability of various apple picking strategies, it subverts the discussion to say “but if the strategy results in them randomly finding a trove of apples, then that strategy could possibly win out”. In that case, it’s not their strategy that earned them those apples, is it?
Here’s the the disconnect though. There are hundreds and hundreds of businesses that have done exactly the same things that Facebook did and went nowhere. Same strategies. Same exploitation. Same formula.
What makes Facebook different isn’t that they did those things better. It’s that they did them in the right place at the right time to corner the market.
I think there’s a good analogy to the music industry. The most popular/famous/wealthy musicians aren’t that way because they are more talented, or ruthless, or have the “winningest” music strategy. There are tens of thousands of other musicians who can play their songs as well or better than them, with more natural talent and willingness to murder for fame and wealth. So why are the famous people famous? Why are they household names while so many who are just as good if not better, with the same drive and strategy and goals, can’t earn enough to put food on the table? It’s luck. They won the popularity lottery by being in the right place at the right time to play to the right people that started the ball rolling.
And sure, ruthlessness and being unethical can help on that path, just as natural talent and determination can. But ultimately, at the scale we’re talking about, they’re negligible forces in the face of raw luck.
To use the apple picking example, what I’m saying is this. If you remove all “extraordinary” luck, and just see how well someone can do by being the meanest, most ruthless, crafty apple gatherer it is possible to be, the most they could end the day with is, let’s say, 10 million apples. But we know that some people have 200 billion apples. So how do we reconcile that? The people with that many apples found an apple pile. That’s the only way to get more than 10 million apples. And sure, maybe you actually found some other guy who found the pile and killed him to take the pile from him, or had some system by which you could trick people into pile hunting for you, so that you have better odds of finding the pile, but at the end of the day you have to find the pile to get more than 10 million apples. There is no other alternative. And yes, being unethical can greatly raise your odds of finding an apple pile, but anyone can find it. It’s just very likely to be one of the unethical people.
But all this is, again, irrelevant to your original position, which was that there is some dollar amount X that you cannot get or keep without engaging in unethical behavior. Not that it’s unlikely to get or keep, but that it is an actual impossibility. Do you still hold to that position in the face of the lottery example?
Same strategies. Same exploitation. Same formula. What makes Facebook different isn’t that they did those things better. It’s that they did them in the right place at the right time to corner the market.
This is effectively my “battle royale” analogy. Agreed.
I think there’s a good analogy to the music industry. The most popular/famous/wealthy musicians aren’t that way because they are more talented, or ruthless, or have the “winningest” music strategy.
Not the musicians, the record labels. But yes, record labels have been ruthless in the music industry since, afaik, around the 1950s. As I mentioned before, I’m not well versed in the music industry, but I know of numerous examples of corporations cornering the music industry. There’s a reason radio stations are always playing the same 30 songs, and why the vast majority of musicians end their careers in debt to their labels (at least 20+ years ago).
And there’s a reason people call them “starving artists”. It is a supremely rare occurrence for the actual musician to see much of the profits from their work. That’s something the internet is changing (in both directions. No one’s looking forward to those fractions of a cent per play on Spotify, but now you don’t need to sign with a label to get a reasonable audience).
the most they could end the day with is, let’s say, 10 million apples. But we know that some people have 200 billion apples. So how do we reconcile that?
Sorry, I don’t follow where these values came from or are supposed to represent. How do we know the max number of apples in this under-defined analogy I’ve come up with? It sounds like you’re envisioning 10 million apples out on trees, and 200 billion stashed away to be found, while I’m picturing the vast majority (200 billion I guess) to be out on the trees needing picking.
But how this ties back to reality…you’re saying that you believe the primary way to reach an unreasonable amount of wealth is in bulk, via pure luck? That’s where we disagree. Going back to the top of your post, and my “battle royale” example, luck can get you a lot, but to amass an unreasonable amount X, you need a pattern/strategy, that keeps wealth coming towards you and away from competitors. And in order to amass an unreasonable amount, you need to use unethical means.
Hm, I’m not sure it’s possible to say which of our worldviews is right here without a large amount of data that…which I don’t know if is available.
I don’t think you understood my last apple analogy at all, but honestly, I’m not really emotionally invested in trying anymore.
I think our impasse at it’s core is that we simply disagree on how much luck plays a factor in becoming a “X-ionaire.”
You seem to think that the ones who did it are just the best of the best at being unethical businessmen. I look at the ranks of those who made it and I don’t see genius Machiavellian strategic masterminds. I see people who capitalized on exactly the right idea at exactly the right time.
I can’t pont to a Zuckerberg or a Gates or a Musk and say, “ah, this was the unethical strategy that got them to the top.” I see that they were at the right place and time to fill a massive unfilled niche in society, and to beat everyone to the punch.
That’s not skill. That’s luck. That’s not masterful strategy. Luck. It’s not the inevitable outcome of their unethical business practices. It’s dumb luck.
Are they unethical? Absolutely. Did that help along the way? To a degree, certainly.
But like, think about it like this. Did Bill Gates ruthlessly stomp on others people and companies to grow Microsoft to what it is today? Absolutely. But how many competitors were there in that space that he needed to stomp? Five? Six? That means that out of 8 trillion people on Earth, he was one of 5, maybe 6, that even had the opportunity to corner that market.
And why is that? Because life isn’t perfect information, and opportunities aren’t evenly spread.
To make one final pass at the apples example. In life, the apples aren’t uniformly spread across the trees. You have to have the thought, “I bet there are some apples over in that part of the orchard,” and then go look for them there. Sometimes there’s a few. Sometimes there’s a lot. Sometimes there’s none. Not every area you search will be bursting with apples. Sometimes, very very very rarely, there’s 200 billion apples in the area you go looking. And not everybody knows what’s going on everywhere else in the orchard at all times. Sometimes you and 5 or 6 buddies stumble onto the same patch of 200 billion apples at the same time, and you fight to the death over them. Sometimes you leverage that big pile of apples you just got to force others to look for big apple patches for you. Sometimes you use the influence from your big pile of apples to change the apple finding rules in your favor. Or sometimes, you’re a random dude who thinks, “man, I bet there’s a bunch of apples over there,” and you find them and pick them all on your own. At the end of the day, the people who have big piles of apples have them because at some point they either looked and found a motherload of apples, and beat out anyone else who saw it while they were picking, or someone who did gave them all their apples on their deathbed. And being unethical can help you kill off the people in your immediate vicinity who saw the same bunch of apples you did, but to even have that opportunity to crush your competition means that you were lotto winning lucky to even be in the race at the start.
think about it like this. Did Bill Gates ruthlessly stomp on others people and companies to grow Microsoft to what it is today? Absolutely. But how many competitors were there in that space that he needed to stomp? Five? Six? That means that out of 8 trillion people on Earth, he was one of 5, maybe 6, that even had the opportunity to corner that market.
I agree 100% (except for the part where the list of competitors was WAY larger, but that’s neither here nor there). Yeah, obviously luck is always a factor for everyone, and opportunities don’t present themselves to everyone, but for those who do have the opportunity, the person willing to be the most unethical will have the largest advantage, and thus is most likely to beat out the rest.
I agree that I don’t think we can take the discussion further than this. Good talk. I’m just glad I found someone on here that didn’t call me a proto-captialist nazi for calling the original post oversimplified.
Yeah we really need an upper limit for wealth. In video games you would eventually cap the score, and billionaires are far in excess of that. Reminds me of that episode of Ducktales where Scrooge celebrates that he has become so rich he no longer has to pay taxes because they cannot be calculated any more.
kbin.life
Top