[HN Gopher] Coinbase lays off around 1,100 employees ___________________________________________________________________ Coinbase lays off around 1,100 employees Author : kripy Score : 395 points Date : 2022-06-14 17:12 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.coindesk.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.coindesk.com) | rgifford wrote: | Go back and read the HN thread from the Coinbase DPO [1]. Their | valuation was insane then, before the war in Ukraine, inflation, | or Omicron. The top comments on that thread shock me. Even at | that time I expected every other comment to be about how | overvalued they were, but it just wasn't the case. | | Wonder if people could've been made to see this then. I went full | on Chicken Little [2] and mostly just got treated like I was | yelling at children to get off my lawn. | | 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26808275 | | 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26808275&p=2#26812175 | asien wrote: | No surprise, just like Uber , Airbnb etc..coinbase has been | overstaffed ever since they raised a major amount of capital many | years ago... | | Hence , I don't see what 5K people can be doing at coinbase since | some startups in Europe are doing the same with like 100 | people... | | It's been known for years : startups overhire and lay-off when | recession comes up. | | With the "nazi revolution" in the 50' , most startups rely | exclusively on "Social Darwinism" , to solve problems or improve | products , by having them fight internally and let the best ideas | come to executives. Of course only employees who know how to | navigate corporate politics are able to reach them and win those | fights.. | | Those 1000 were not part of it, but they will have no problem | finding another position somewhere else. | sytelus wrote: | I don't understand why Coinbase is feeling such a crunch. They | are just middleman in buying and selling. Their advantage is | supposed to be that they make money whether crypto goes up or | down. How can they screw this up? | boc wrote: | USDC. | | They see something really bad on their books that's separate | from their core business. Just like how Lehman Brothers was a | profitable bank that got shredded by one risky trading | strategy. | | These stablecoins have been devoured one by one, and each time | they fall more people start trying to get their money out. USDC | will experience a run and it might not be survivable without | liquidating user account holdings, which will be a massive | extinction event for retail crypto. | cwkoss wrote: | If Coinbase is operating USDC as full reserve, as they have | claimed, is there any risk from it? Seems like there would | only be risk if they lied about how they are running it. | dadoge wrote: | No one is expecting a run on USDC | | Given that their business is just a "buy sell" platform, they | are trimming around to get just that | | They have lots of other features like "NFTs, lending" etc and | other investments in their UX (separating out to currency vs | smart contracts vs defi) I'm sure all that A/B testing to get | that will be squeezed now too | miketery wrote: | They are no longer in a position to charge exuberant fees due | to competition. And they depend on new inflows, in a bear | market inflows are low - mostly out flows. Pie is shrinking. | fullshark wrote: | All i can think is they had bad forecasts based off trade | volume during COVID when people had a ton of stimulus cash and | nothing to do all day. Another possibility is something | involving solvency in case a crypto selloff + run happens which | seems possible any day now. | arnvald wrote: | Their expenses are based on predicted growth in the volume of | transactions. They're making money no matter if crypto goes up | or down, but they stop making money when people stop trading. | skizm wrote: | They make money when trading volume is up. Trading volume and | BTC price are pretty much directly correlated. Trading volume | is way down. | SirYandi wrote: | I imagine they do own significant amount of crypto. Also, less | people are buying as the price dips. | Grustaf wrote: | How can they even have 1100 employees? That's more than the East | India Company needed to run a whole subcontinent, probably. | whimsicalism wrote: | 1100 is not even close and populations were much smaller. | neals wrote: | Yes, the East India Company ran a much more efficient crypto | exchange, obviously. | pphysch wrote: | EIC was working in concert with other major British | institutions including the military. They probably had 100,000s | of personnel in total. | valar_m wrote: | East India Company employed 260,000 soldiers alone, not even | counting the entire rest of the company. That took 20 seconds | to find. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company | formvoltron wrote: | what the heck did all those people do!? | manicksurya wrote: | hmm. looks like the total mentality of an entrepreneur changes | when the company becomes public. with VC funds, the entrepreneur | focuses on execution and builds and with IPO, its ok for | entrepreneurs to lose vigor and can buy millions worth property | and also lay off employees. | | In the end, it has nothing to do with open society or for the | people. its all about money and its just greed. | kingboss wrote: | Wasn't this guy one of Paul Graham's darlings? Weren't the | "geniuses" at YCombinator invested in this pile of trash? | | I would really like one of those "insightful" posts from pg | telling us how to pick winners right about now. | joezydeco wrote: | We went over this 9 years ago. | | When you posted anything negative and mentioned YC in the | headline, the mods edited the headline. When Coinbase went dark | during the first crypto winter (or was it the second?), asking | for some/any help here was ridiculed by the YC powers that be | (i.e pg) | [deleted] | elefanten wrote: | Coinbase is one of the top competitors in its space. They | picked a winner. | | What's your point? Are you confusing the market they're in | contracting (alongside the whole market) with them losing? | kingboss wrote: | Top competitors in a scam. Just like NFTs. And boys like pg | are into this (both Coinbase and some NFT company that I | forgot its name). And you are defending them. And you don't | see any problem. And that is the problem. No values was | created here. Just moving value around. Usually into the | pockets of some already very rich people. | phaistra wrote: | You literally just described most of Wall Street and most | of the finance industry too. | wollsmoth wrote: | Sort of, it's all very abstracted but at the end of the | day the investments generally represent value being | produced. Goods being created, services being rendered. | Crypto, for the most part, is proof that someone, | somewhere had a computer that did a thing. | fleddr wrote: | You confuse personal opinions about crypto with business | success. | | Coinbase is a massive success. It has a 100 million users and | is the best known crypto exchange for retail. They did pick the | winner. | | This layoff creates a lot of emotional attention but doesn't | mean that much in business terms. They were overhiring anyway | and all of tech is massively down. It's a small undoing of | growing too fast. | namaria wrote: | We're achieving on this thread levels of boot-licking previously | considered entirely theoretical | repomies69 wrote: | wly_cdgr wrote: | benmw333 wrote: | I keep reading all this "we" stuff... | newaccount2021 wrote: | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | How did they possibly employ that many to begin with? | outside1234 wrote: | Coinbase had over 6000 employees?!?!?! | [deleted] | sillysaurusx wrote: | I think if employees feel slighted by being fired, they're | fooling themselves. The best mindset is that you could be gone | tomorrow. It gives you clarity and purpose. It also happens to be | the truth. | | Coinbase was also extremely generous with severance. 12 weeks | plus two for every one year at the company, I think. I've had the | experience of being let go without notice and without severance. | | Devs seem a little more grizzled this time around, so I think | this mindset is slowly becoming the norm. College grads seem | skittish, but they always are. | | People keep pointing to Armstrong's $110M house like it's some | sort of injustice. If you think billionaires should exist at all, | then that's one of the least-bad injustices imaginable. It's | probably true that no Armstrong, no Coinbase, and 10% of Coinbase | is the prize. | | EDIT: It's actually 14 weeks: | https://blog.coinbase.com/a-message-from-coinbase-ceo-and-co... | | Three and a half months of dev salary is pretty incredible. | Apocryphon wrote: | Whether billionaires should exist or should be able to buy | hundred million dollar homes aside, the timing just plain looks | bad. As mentioned in the other discussion thread, the price of | his home is "enough to give everyone who was laid off slightly | a severance of more than $120,000". | | Obviously Armstrong was never going to give a dime of his | personal net worth to an employee, much less a former one, but | there are such a thing as optics and public opinion. The | juxtaposition of that purchase with layoffs at his company just | doesn't look good. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31739997 | deeptote wrote: | sillysaurusx wrote: | I do tiktok dances mostly, but weddings are fun too. | | The point is, I'm not sure there are any issues. People don't | like change and uncertainty. But uncertainty is a fact of | life. | | It's so much nicer just to accept it and move on. It helps | you in the long run too. | john_yaya wrote: | My severance don't jiggle-jiggle, it folds. | | Converted it to fiat, you really oughtta see it. | 5d8767c68926 wrote: | What exactly is the issue? Company predicts that the market | is not going their way, and they are tightening their belt. | Sucks to be on the receiving end, but are they supposed to | keep all employees forever, business conditions be damned? | roflyear wrote: | For context, that is about $44m of severance that they are | paying out as a part of these layoffs, if we assume about $150k | average salary. | izzydata wrote: | I don't think billionaires should exist, but I also don't think | these employees have been wronged. That is a pretty generous | severance package. | tomcam wrote: | How much money should people be allowed to have? | philodelta wrote: | I worry about the unaccounted soft power of someone with | that much money. Through lobbying and market consolidation, | the extremely wealthy hold disproportionate political and | economic power. At least with corrupt politicians, in a | liberal democracy there is some amount to which they are | accountable to the people. The power of the wealthy is | without account except through government action. laisse- | faire capitalists like to hand wave and imagine this power | is "not a problem" when it very clearly is, with people | like the Kochs wielding their power to sow political | propaganda. They did not "earn" that power, or at the very | least I don't think people deserve that power even if they | were skillful businessmen. For me, it has nothing to do | with sour grapes, I don't care that they have more money | then I can imagine, other than they can use that money to | have a greater voice than me. | tomcam wrote: | Should a large labor union, nonprofit, or a non- | governmental organization have exactly the same voice as | you? | izzydata wrote: | I agree with this. I don't care when someone has 1000 | cars or 100 houses and owns a jet plane or whatever. I do | care about how it enables them to unfairly direct other | peoples lives to their personal agenda. I also care when | people have too little that they can barely feed | themselves and have nowhere to live. | | I feel like there must be some way these two problems can | help solve eachother. | tomcam wrote: | How has your life been badly affected by someone who owns | 1000 cars? | izzydata wrote: | It probably hasn't very much which is why it doesn't | bother me. Which is what I said. | tomcam wrote: | How much money should people be allowed to have? | mbg721 wrote: | Tree fiddy, certainly. | tomcam wrote: | Analysis: true | I-M-S wrote: | No more than it would make others envy you, no less than | it would make them pity you. | colinmhayes wrote: | Whatever the people decide. That's why we have democracy. | tomcam wrote: | I don't know who your "we" is, but in the USA it is | precisely why we do not have a democracy. We have a | republic in the USA. The Senate and electoral college | help temper the intoxicating effects that a pure | democracy would produce . | colinmhayes wrote: | > we do not have a democracy | | Republics are a type of democracy. | tomcam wrote: | In a taxonomy of government types, sure. Practically | speaking, the difference between a pure democracy and a | republic is enormous. The framers of the constitution | were explicitly aware of this. | Kon5ole wrote: | How much should people be allowed to spend on a share of a | company? How do you limit it? | schlauerfox wrote: | " Harrison Bergeron " by Kurt Vonnegut. | weakfish wrote: | The issue is assuming people who are anti billionaire are | anywhere remotely close to the ideology in that book. | It's a good story, but a billion dollars is staggering | and hardly anywhere near desiring ballet dancers to wear | chains. | flashgordon wrote: | Ok let me take a stab at it. I actually am on the fence on | this so purely a thought exercise for me. Plus as someone | getting into midlife crisis this has been on top of mind | for me. | | How about take (in no order): | | 1. 1 or 2 fancy cars/suvs | | 2. Be able to travel business class (say once a month) for | vacations and stay in decent hotels | | 3. Nice education (say 2 degrees at a top college) | | 4. Nice house (say 2 rooms per family member in a "decent" | neighborhood) (add things like backyard, poop etc if you | like) | | 5. Obviously enough money to pay taxes | | 6. Oh and ensure health-issue-free lifestyle | | 7. (Hobby or two) | | 8. (Ultra Branded clothing?) | | See what it takes to get all of the above and double it. Or | even 3x it. Ymmv ofcourse. I am not a traveller so fancy | hotels or biz class is not a big deal. I am also not a car | person so 1 and 2 are not big deals for now (things can | always change). | | I still can't see this needing billionaire status? | biofox wrote: | What if I have all that, but also have a great idea for a | business. Let's say I want to try it out, but to do so | I'll need to hire some industrial space, expensive | equipment, 5-10 engineers, and some business / marketing | people to get it going. Should I have to risk my standard | of living to do that? | | What if I have 10 ideas that require that? | flashgordon wrote: | That's a great point. I wasn't suggesting people | shouldn't desire things. We talk as if billionaires are | not a zero sum game. But is that really true? | #billionaires has gone up but the basic line around | housing, education, healthcare, pollution have all been | declining no? If I was to venture a hypothesis, will the | billionaire's ability to realize the billions actually be | viable if it wasn't for the workers who desperately need | to cover (the stripped down basic form of) needs 1-7 | above? | elefanten wrote: | Add social expenses -- what it takes to fit into a | society or community. | | Add a buffer for risk and uncertainty about the future. | | And then consider what role location has on the whole | package. If you want proximity to one of the global hubs | / power centers, then you're looking at doing this all in | a top-tier cost market. | | Then you easily push into tens of millions. Breaking a | hundred million to super thoroughly check those boxes | isn't a stretch. | | This is before considering an agenda / passion that you | want to see changed in the world. And before any | ambitious desires from family members and close friends. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | Breaking into a hundred million is an absurdity given the | criteria GP set. | tomcam wrote: | No it's not. Given the house prices in places like Palo | Alto, Malibu, London, or Moscow, the house alone could | easily be $50 million. | tomcam wrote: | Can you describe the new governmental Department of Hobby | Restrictions? I study music history, transcribe old | popular songs, and play many different instruments. Does | this count as one hobby called music or does it count as | three different hobbies? | | What would be the penalty for an asshole like me having | three hobbies instead of the two allowed under your plan? | | Am I allowed to have one flute, or if I play | professionally am I allowed to have two in case one is | broken? Am I allowed to have an alto flute and a bass | flute as well, or am I limited to just the garden-variety | soprano flute? | flashgordon wrote: | So the #hobbies is really up to you. At some point | personal responsibility would need to kick in to support | things beyond some level of basic necessities no? | djbusby wrote: | 100x of the average net-worth in the 50km radius of their | primary residence. | kube-system wrote: | You have invented maybe the best way to concentrate | wealth even further than it already is. | [deleted] | izzydata wrote: | There is obviously no exact dollar amount. I don't believe | everyone should have the same amount, but there should | probably be some lower and upper limit. Maybe it is | possible to calculate the difference between the two. | Perhaps the upper limit would be 10000x that of the lower | limit. Just as an example. There being a lower limit also | implies some kind of universal basic income. Theoretically | partially supplied by the upper limits excess. | shrimpx wrote: | What happens to the excess is what's interesting. And if | it's in volatile assets, how do you shave off the top? | E.g. your stocks go way above the limit in a bubble but | then crash by 50% right after you got taxed. | xur17 wrote: | The other "fun" side effect of this is that the | government is slowly going to become the majority owner | of every business. | shrimpx wrote: | Yeah. I guess that model implies that the govt will take | a percent ownership of whatever you own. I think it would | destroy the prospect of high risk high reward ventures | like Tesla. Maybe the tax rate can be divided by a | volatility metric so investors in high risk ventures | aren't severely punished randomly. | tomcam wrote: | Do you feel random government employees would be more | productive and knowledgeable than the owners of the | business whose shares were taken away by this scheme? Do | you feel good businesses would continue to be good when | handled by bureaucrats? Bonus points for the name of a | bureaucracy that has done this kind of thing well. | shrimpx wrote: | No I don't support this. I keep trying to figure out how | it _could_ work, so I can understand the point of view of | the people who propose it. I haven't seen any salient | proposal. | tomcam wrote: | There is obviously an exact upper dollar amount. You | described it yourself: $1 billion. | | Do you think restricting the amount of money people can | make and therefore pay taxes on is a good way to pay for | universal basic income? Elon Musk will famously pay | something like $12 billion this year. What's the best way | to sustain welfare programs that you like without a large | tax base? | headsupftw wrote: | "One million dollars baby!" | ipaddr wrote: | If they start hiring around christmas they saved no money and | would have been better off keeping the employees. It looks like | we are in store for a long down period. | nojito wrote: | Didn't they pay a CPO $600m+? | nickstinemates wrote: | > Three and a half months of dev salary is pretty incredible. | | Completely agree. Layoffs suck and I hope no one reading this | ever has to go through them. But, it could have been done a lot | worse than this, that is for sure. | zjaffee wrote: | The state of California requires that Employees are paid for 60 | work days (8 weeks) if there is a layoff at this scale. I | assume that's where the majority of these employees are | located. They're offering an extra month/month and a half | likely on the condition they sign some sort of NDA/Right to sue | the company for wrongful termination. | yellowapple wrote: | > If you think billionaires should exist at all | | That's a big "if". It's pretty dang hard to amass that much | wealth without robbing the people around you. | | That's indeed pretty generous severance-wise, but that | $110,000,000 happens to be enough to keep each and every one of | those laid-off employees on the payroll for another year | (assuming $100k/year salary). | aetherson wrote: | Well, assuming $100k total cost of employment to the company. | My guess is that the per-employee total cost of employment to | Coinbase is at least twice that. | [deleted] | ralston3 wrote: | True. | | But I don't think it's so much the firing, as it is the | Coinbase telling new hires "Offers won't be revoked". But then, | not only revoking said offers, but then additionally firing | 1,000+ people. | | They're experiencing a bit of a PR relations nightmare ATM. | Curious to see if this might hurt them with hiring going | forward. | qbasic_forever wrote: | I think workers should organize and bargain collectively with | their employer on their working conditions and policies for | layoffs. | triyambakam wrote: | I technically got 3 months of severance when covid started, | however after taxes it reduced it to 1 month. That was so | depressing. | kamikaz1k wrote: | Would you happen to know how RSUs are factored into this | equation? Or is it just salary? | tuckerpo wrote: | Anecdote: I had an old co-worker who was given 6 month's notice | that he'd be let go from a previous job, and his manager at the | time helped him look for a new gig + gave him shining reviews | and references. After the 6 month period was up, they still | gave him several months of severance, even after he had found a | new gig. Some companies/managers actually do care about you, | and it seems like Coinbase is roughly in that court. | | Getting laid off with zero warning and no severance can be a | life-ruining event if it's at a bad time logistically in | someone's life. It could be way worse. Always have your resume | updated, and take interviews every now and again just in case. | hardtke wrote: | I've been chatting with some friends whose company shut down | recently, basically with no warning. They are getting | recruited like crazy. In my opinion that's much preferable | than to being left go as part of the 20% lowest performing | employees. This reads like a "culling of the herd because we | can use the alleged upcoming recession as an excuse" event. | I'm not sure the generous severance makes up for the "you are | not in the top 80%" label. | rapjr9 wrote: | It has the appearance of companies trying to cause a | recession instead of waiting for one to occur. Coinbase | admits it can't predict the future but are being | precautionary in case there is a recession? If their plan | is to take a worst case view then why not just cash out the | whole company and shut it down on the precautionary | principle? If this is an attempt to put a scare into | workers to keep wages low it may backfire since worker | shortages seem to be large and other companies may easily | absorb a lot of workers, making it hard to get workers back | later (and it takes time to train new ones). It could | encourage people to leave on their own if they start | hearing of the better jobs others are getting after being | forced to leave, and it shows zero commitment to workers | (so workers should reciprocate). It might be necessary to | actually destroy many companies before this fear tactic can | have some generic effect. People who died in the pandemic, | got long covid, retired, or felt abused are probably not | coming back (though hopefully long covid proves not to be | forever.) Lay off workers during a worker shortage and you | had better count on not being able to get them back easily. | higeorge13 wrote: | Layoffs is never about underperforming employees. Whole | teams or departments are usually laid off, including top | talent. | scarface74 wrote: | You should always be prepared for your job to be pulled out | from under you. There is no major city in the US where a | software engineer with experience shouldn't be in the top | quartile of income earners for their location and have a 3-6 | months emergency fund. | | You should always have an updated resume, career document, be | interview ready and have an active network. | kajecounterhack wrote: | > Some companies/managers actually do care about you, and it | seems like Coinbase is roughly in that court. | | Do they really tho? They rescinded offers to many foreign | students on OPT visas who had turned down Ph.D programs and | such, putting them in a pickle. And they did it over email. | notyourwork wrote: | At-will employment is "at will" of both parties. | kajecounterhack wrote: | In case it wasn't obvious, there are social contracts | between folks that are established outside of the written | contract. Things like, "you should try to give 2 weeks | notice when possible" and "you should not hire and change | your mind in a matter of months, before the person has | worked for you, but after they had already turned down | other hard-won options." | | Folks who violate social contract are called assholes. | You don't go to jail for being an asshole but some folks | won't want to work with you and that's okay. | at-fates-hands wrote: | > The best mindset is that you could be gone tomorrow. It gives | you clarity and purpose. | | Probably the best advice you can give someone in the tech | industry. Even when I'm happy and content in a position, I'm | still constantly looking and interviewing. | | I got burned pretty bad at two startups in a row where the | founders were pitching rainbows and unicorns and one company | just went bust and I showed up one day and they sent everybody | home - no severance, no reference, nothing. The other scenario, | one of the founders fled the country with the money and left | everybody high and dry. | | Both were eye opening enough where now I have multiple backup | plans, I network like crazy, I listen to what people are | saying, I watch and see who's leaving the company. If you see | higher executives leaving en masse, its a lot different then a | few low level sales people. In both of the above situations, I | missed a lot of red flags I would've caught today. | moneywoes wrote: | I'll shoot my shot here, know of mid level remote backend | opportunities? | staunch wrote: | > _Coinbase was also extremely generous with severance._ | | Regardless of what one thinks of Coinbase, their decision to | offer employees generous severance deserves massive praise. If | you were on the fence about working at Coinbase, currently or | in the future, it should be a major point in their favor. | | If nothing else, it shows competence. Too many incompetent CEOs | (and their boards) wait too long and then do layoffs with | little or no severance. Instead of the responsible thing and | laying people off early enough to give them a proper severance. | mrcheesebreeze wrote: | there is no problem with being a billionare provided you do the | near impossible and not hurt anyone to get it. | | Being rich isn't criminal, being criminal to get rich is. | repomies69 wrote: | In the end I care about the stock going up, and now it finally | seems to be doing that. The point of a company is to generate | wealth for the owners and nothing else. Employees need to | negotiate with the contracts according to that. | SantalBlush wrote: | No, the point of a company is to provide a net value to | society. This often (but not always) correlates with | generating profits. | kareemsabri wrote: | > The best mindset is that you could be gone tomorrow. | | Best for what? | hiq wrote: | > I've had the experience of being let go without notice and | without severance. | | You could reasonably ask whether that should be legal at all. | Johnny555 wrote: | _People keep pointing to Armstrong 's $110M house like it's | some sort of injustice. If you think billionaires should exist | at all, then that's one of the least-bad injustices imaginable_ | | Ok, I'll admit it, billionaires should not exist at all, there | should be a heavy wealth tax that makes it hard to become a | billionaire. Will a CEO work less hard if he (and his peers) | can only ever gain $100M in net worth before a wealth tax on | assets kicks in? | consumer451 wrote: | The best argument I can think of for why humans should not | have wealth disparities at levels of 500,000,000,000:1 is | that Tax Induced Psychosis appears to be a thing. | | Having to write 10 digit checks to the government makes | people behave irrationally. We are just not evolved for it | and likely never will be. | alx__ wrote: | Christ on a skateboard!? All the temporarily displaced | billionaires in this thread are something else. | | If you require more than 100M in net worth to be "motivated" | to work. There's a larger problem with you. Being a | CEO/leader doesn't require some skill set that's given to you | from some mythical watery being just because you're special. | sharkweek wrote: | I'm a big fan of 100% taxation on anything above 999M, but | my continuation here is that anyone that earns more than | that gets a trophy for every additional 1B they earn put on | display in a big museum in a city of their choice (Museums | selectively scattered around the US). | theptip wrote: | I like the idea of getting public achievements based on | your personal tax contributions. | | Give them a public museum name for each $B for all I | care! | | Or more generally, just let them pick which program they | want to have their face/logo on. "The Musk EV car | subsidy" etc. | Aeolun wrote: | I'm a firm believer in a maximum of like 50% tax on | income. Anything more just feels like a punishment for | working. | jcampbell1 wrote: | It isn't about the money, rather it is a public scoreboard | to remind us that we must serve others and be innovative. | mkr-hn wrote: | It's not working. Jeff Bezos said he can't think of | anything to do with his money other than build rockets | while people die in his warehouses. Too much money makes | people out of touch. I don't think billionaires are evil, | I just think they don't know what life is like for people | who still have a concept of "cost of living." | Aeolun wrote: | > If you require more than 100M in net worth to be | "motivated" to work. There's a larger problem with you. | | How else are you going to buy a decent airplane? The nice | ones start at a few tens of millions. | Stupulous wrote: | 100M in net worth would motivate me, but one of the | differences between me and a talented CEO is that I don't | already have 100M in net worth. Gates had well over 100M | when Microsoft went public in 1986, Bezos had more than a | billion when Amazon went public in 1998, Musk made 150M on | Ebay's Paypal acquisition in 2002. We may disagree on | whether we're better off that they continued working, but I | don't think they would have done so as a public service | after they capped out lifetime income. | Apocryphon wrote: | So you're saying all of those figures were more motivated | by money rather than building something of value. Do you | truly think they were more motivated by money than by | glory, a competitive spirit, a desire for legacy? | theptip wrote: | > I don't think they would have done so as a public | service after they capped out lifetime income. | | That is definitely the big question. Given that Gates is | busy donating most of his cash to charity, there are | counterexamples. | | But even biting the bullet and accepting the premise, | it's not immediately obvious that losing all of the work | from current billionaires would be a bad trade in | exchange for substantially reduced inequality. | | My counterpoint is that most billionaires don't seem to | be continuing to work hard primarily to get another | billion. It's more for the fun/fulfillment and status. If | they can still have fun and status even without | controlling as much wealth they will probably still go | for it. | yellowbanana wrote: | This has nothing to do with motivation, | | If you start a company and that company becomes succesfull | you will end up rich. | | > Being a CEO/leader doesn't require some skill set that's | given to you from some mythical watery being just because | you're special. | | Controlling a company requires shares, and shares are | networth, it is good that companies are controlled by | people who most understand them, and those are the people | who started/built them. | | There seems to be an illogical hate to people who have | build companies that ended up being successfull. | | If you are a small business ( non mega successfull company | ), everyone is with you, "Small businesses are the backbone | of our economy ", but then you win. | Johnny555 wrote: | _Controlling a company requires shares, and shares are | networth, it is good that companies are controlled by | people who most understand them, and those are the people | who started /built them._ | | Voting shares don't have to have monetary value. | Rememeber Google's IPO where the founders had stock with | 10 votes per share, or Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock | with 1/10000th the voting rights as class A? | | So a founder could retain control of a company without | becoming personally rich. | xvedejas wrote: | Aren't those classes of stock with voting power worth a | lot more? I'm not sure how you'd possibly avoid being | rich on paper if you have a majority voting power for | Google. | imdsm wrote: | A lot of people seem to be in the mindset that it'll | never be them so it should never be anyone else. It's not | just in the US, here in the Uk we have the same mindset | too. | | A lot of people dislike/hate Elon Musk for example, and | usually they focus on two things: his tweets, and his | wealth. Conveniently forgetting that prior to his work at | SpaceX and Tesla (which he's driven) reusable rockets | weren't a thing and EVs were restricted to oddities | laughed at on Top Gear. | | It seems to be the way, people look at the wealth and | think "well that shouldn't happen". But it doesn't come | from no where, it doesn't just appear. | | For anyone who thinks this wealth shouldn't appear, let | me ask this: if someone could discover a cure for all | cancers -- how much should they be allowed to earn for | it? I.E. What price would you put on the cure for all | cancers? | heliodor wrote: | Taxing billionaires is a simplistic knee-jerk reaction that | doesn't address the actual problems people have. It just | feeds people's hate. | | Consider that people have a lot of problems with Amazon's | practices. So suddenly, everyone is yelling to tax the hell | out of Bezos. But no one has the drive to actually plug the | holes that allowed him to make so much money in the first | place. All kinds of employee injustices, environmental | abuses, and whatever else pops up in the news all the time. | Johnny555 wrote: | I don't expect a billionaire tax to have any impact on | Amazon's business practices, that doesn't make any sense. | Amazon's treatment of employees is a separate issue from a | wealth tax. | | I just don't think that any one person should have the kind | of power that comes from amassing a $100B+ fortune. | slickrick216 wrote: | How wealthy are you? If you don't like me asking a question | then it's a bit hypocritical to make comments about others | wealth. If your net worth is over 100k USD I think you should | only have 10k and the rest be stripped away from you and give | the needy? You don't like that tough your freedom isn't | yours. | | I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational but you | shouldn't just impinge on peoples freedom to acquire wealth. | Those who do shouldn't have any. Those who have some level | and wealth and try it. Well they are just pulling up the | ladder behind them. | smsm42 wrote: | Yes. For certain definitions of "less hard" - he probably | would work the same time, but he would have less new | projects, less new investments, etc. - some companies that we | know now would not exist, because there would be nobody | having that kind of money laying around to be spent on crazy | projects. Coinbase would probably not exist, because people | who were crazy enough to spend money on that kind of | extremely risky investments would not have that money around. | It's not that those people would be poor - no, they probably | would still have nice mansions from those $100M they were | allowed to keep. But they wouldn't have enough money "they | don't need" to throw them around on highly risky and | completely insane projects like making a platform that trades | "currency" which relies on bunch of computers repeatedly | running hash functions. | jstanley wrote: | > Will a CEO work less hard if he (and his peers) can only | ever gain $100M in net worth before a wealth tax on assets | kicks in? | | He'll certainly work a lot less hard _after_ the wealth tax | kicks in. | mrep wrote: | Shit, I'd immediately retire | bluedevil2k wrote: | Yeah, but I'm that's the attitude that separates you from | a billionaire. Billionaires are never satisfied with | their net worth. | SantalBlush wrote: | Then another entrepreneur who hasn't yet made $100M can | start a business in the same space. If the market can bear | both businesses, then they both win. If it can't, then | they're in direct competition and we're still better off. | | This actually sounds better than what we have now: monopoly | as the end goal. | jstanley wrote: | Then why don't we set the cutoff at PS10k instead so that | the very poorest have a chance? | | Or set the cutoff at just above the poorest person's net | worth. When they make some money they won't be the | poorest any more and next year it will be updated to the | new poorest person's net worth. That way we make sure | everybody has a fair chance at getting rich. | | Or is it possible that those who have a demonstrated | history of wealth creation are actually better at it, and | we're all better off if they continue to do more of it? | Apocryphon wrote: | Sure, we can start by applying that cutoff on those with | the most PS10k's to spare. | SantalBlush wrote: | What you're describing would actually be much closer to a | meritocracy than what we have now. The fact that your | proposition frightens people shows that they don't | actually want a meritocracy at all. | | Many of those wealth creators you describe would get | annhilated in the markets if they were on a level playing | field with everyone around the world. | corrral wrote: | That might be a good idea! | | Let's start at a hundreds-of-millions cutoff and see how | it goes. | tomcam wrote: | There are plenty of people in the world who would think that | anything over $500/month is way more than enough for one | person. Should your compensation be reduced to that amount? | | Does someone earning more than you hurt you? | | Also... do billionaires employ people? Do you want their | employees to have their jobs seized from them when the | johny555 tax goes into effect? | jwilber wrote: | Awful comparison. Your number of $500 isn't possible to | live on in much of the world. It's an artificial floor - a | fair comparison would be one that everyone could live off | with ease, not just your false dichotomy few. | | Never mind that a billionaire could live anywhere and | literally couldn't spend all of their money if they tried. | panda-giddiness wrote: | > There are plenty of people in the world who would think | that anything over $500/month is way more than enough for | one person. Should your compensation be reduced to that | amount? | | This is an absurd slippery slope, and a bizarre appeal to | "plenty of people" to boot. There is a significant and | categorical difference between $500/mo and $1 billion. You | undermine your own point by not addressing it. | | In fact, if there were a wealth cap of $500/mo as you | posit, it would take over 150000 years to accumulate $1 | billion, which frankly only reinforces how excessive that | amount of money is. | tomcam wrote: | Who determines excessive? How do high risk ideas get | executed when there are no billionaires? | Johnny555 wrote: | _How do high risk ideas get executed when there are no | billionaires_ | | The same way most of them do now -- through venture | capital firms. Or maybe if they had more tax revenue, the | US government could sponsor more speculative research and | companies. | Apocryphon wrote: | It _would_ be nice if there was more public funding for | basic research. Why aren 't the benevolent billionaires | this thread is talking about paying for _that_? | epicide wrote: | Perhaps part of the problem is that we incentivize high- | risk ideas too much. | Johnny555 wrote: | I think it's the opposite. | | I'm not talking about "Let's start a social media app for | Aardvarks!" kind of ideas, but actual scientific | research. We used to have pure research orgs like Bell | Labs, but companies aren't funding pure research any | more, so we need more investment from government. Not | every idea should have a path to monetization before it's | funded. | ghshephard wrote: | > Does someone earning more than you hurt you? | | Yes. Because they can afford private schooling, legal and | medical care that the bottom 90% cannot because those | services are privatized and only available to the very | wealthy. If the ruling class/wealthy who controlled the | system could not depend on their vast wealth for great | schools for their children, health and legal protection - | then all of a sudden the social system would be | spectacular, and everyone would benefit. | | Inequality is poisonous because it creates massive | disincentives to create a working socialized health, | education, legal system.... | mensetmanusman wrote: | On the flip side, the tragedy of the commons prevents | progress in a socialized system. | | Game theory says there are no easy answers. Child outcome | data suggest that strong family structures seem to have | the most impact. | qbasic_forever wrote: | You can put a wealth tax on billionaires without putting | taxes on poverty level workers ($500/month in the US). | | You're making bizarre nonsensical arguments here--slippery | slope, strawman, etc. | foobar2021 wrote: | The top 1% complaining about the top 0.01% while ignoring | 99% of the world is a nonsensical argument? | tapland wrote: | Wow, yeah. Putting it like this makes it pretty crazy | right? | | You don't see your error? | eweise wrote: | Most of the wealth is in unrealized gains. How do tax | that? Let's say I buy a painting for $1 and discover its | a Van Gogh. Now its worth $50 million. Should I be forced | to sell it to pay taxes? | qbasic_forever wrote: | We already have this issue for our existing tax system. | You have to declare your income and use a huge set of tax | rules and laws to determine your AGI and appropriate tax | bracket. Taxing billionaires changes nothing here other | than deciding once your AGI has enough zeros you get more | taxes applied. | eweise wrote: | In this case there is no income so nothing to tax. Yet I | would be worth $50 million and some would cry that's its | unfair, which I think is silly. | qbasic_forever wrote: | Then lobby to change the tax laws, just like folks are | lobbying to add billionaire taxes. The billionaire tax | has nothing to do with the rich having ways of hiding | wealth or income, deferring losses, etc. to reduce their | tax burden. You're making an argument that obfuscates and | obscures the real argument here that billionaires should | not exist as they serve no utility in a society besides | absorbing resources. | eweise wrote: | Not sure I understand. The laws work just like I | described. Nothing to tax, which is the way it should be. | qbasic_forever wrote: | Then nothing changes in your fantastical scenario that I | find a $1B painting in my attic and sit on it. | | What we're talking about here is when people like Jeff | Bezos have billions of dollars of income--direct income | from gains realized in asset sales, income generated from | property, stock sales, salaries, etc.--we shave a | significant portion of those gains off in a wealth tax. | eweise wrote: | Well that's just another unworkable scheme. The income is | already taxed at the highest rate so what you're | suggesting is base the income tax rate on how much a | person is worth, like if they are a billionaire make the | tax rate 99%. How would the IRS determine a person's | financial worth without doing a complete audit of all | their assets? That could take years for a billionaire. | matwood wrote: | Then you can borrow against the Van Gogh for the rest of | your life and likely never pay taxes. Then when you die, | assuming your Van Gogh minus what you borrowed to live is | less than the estate tax exemption (today it sits ~$12M | or $24M if married) you can pass on the $12M/$24M to your | kids federal tax free. Is that fair? IDK. | eweise wrote: | Well estate tax is a different matter. I think its in the | best interest of the country to tax estates heavily above | a certain limit to help eliminate royalty in the US. | elefanten wrote: | That was clearly not the point. The point is there's | always someone with a different bar for what is excessive | wealth. Chances are that 80%+ of the world population | would find your income staggering, the same way you | consider a billionaire's wealth staggering. | | So how do you decide who's scale to use? | Apocryphon wrote: | Stunned that a community of software engineers is | forgetting the top-down approach to algorithm design. | qbasic_forever wrote: | We already have a tiered system of taxes in the US. We | don't tax everyone 50% because the average US wage is | 100x that of a third world country average wage. It's | possible to examine only the US wealth distribution and | make choices about taxing the highest of the high earners | there in isolation of all other earners in the world. | panda-giddiness wrote: | > So how do you decide who's scale to use? | | Like the way all other murky subjects are settled, you | just decide on one. We don't legalize murder just because | some slayings are justified. The existence of grays areas | does not preclude the black and white. | nightski wrote: | Wealth taxes seem so dumb to me. In many cases it's | forcing sale of private or public company ownership from | those who know the company best often to - you guessed it | - institutional investors. It's bad enough how much | control institutional investors have, but to force it by | law seems even more ridiculous. | | There has to be a better solution. | shigawire wrote: | Better solution - sell off the company to the employees. | This way you also promote worker ownership. | planb wrote: | You had me for one second with that argument. But if you | sell off your company, you would still get rich and be | taxed - so why wouldn't you stay on board and your goal | is not to get richer, but to create the best business you | can? | spullara wrote: | You have to sell the business to pay the tax. That is why | wealth taxes are pretty dumb without carve outs for many | kinds of assets. | FabHK wrote: | Why not sell 49% of the business? | kansface wrote: | The percentage doesn't matter. You have to pay taxes on | the stock you own (ie, your startup). You do that by | selling the stock. As the value of the company increases, | you are forced to sell off increasingly large chunks of | your stake to pay the bill thereby loosing ownership | (control) in the process. | FabHK wrote: | With an estate tax, the value is assessed once, I'd | assume (at death/inheritance), then due to be paid. You | might have to sell of a third or whatever of the | fortune/company, and keep the majority. | | Sure, over successive generations, the family might lose | control of their original fortune/company, but that is | compatible with the intention of the tax. | kansface wrote: | You'd lose control much, much faster than that at the | sort of rates being proposed. Even 1% per annum would | destroy control well within a career, let alone a | generation considering exponential growth. | | edit: Just noticed that you are talking about estate | taxes and I'm talking about wealth taxes... | lr4444lr wrote: | To the concentration of wealth? Like what? Wish their | was, but I haven't heard of it. | Swenrekcah wrote: | This is the real problem. In theory it could be argued | that a wealth tax and estate tax are the only really fair | taxes in a capitalist economy. | | He who owns then capital is king, so tax the capital. | | But in reality it would as you say force all sorts of | unwanted liquidation and monetisation of assets just to | pay the tax. | hpkuarg wrote: | Land value tax is the only really fair tax. | eropple wrote: | I used to think this, but over time I changed my mind. | Plenty of capital, particularly in an increasingly | digital economy, requires no land, and ignoring that | privileges that digital capital even more than just not | being tied to physical space does already. | Grustaf wrote: | There's a pretty long jump from banning billionaires to | capping monthly salaries at 500 dollars. | | Nobody makes billions by "earning more than you", they make | it my owning companies, or funds, so this has nothing to do | with salaries. | | But the fact is that the existence of billionaires hurts | everyone, especially in poor countries, but also definitely | in the US. Now I'm not talking about the ethics of some | people wallowing in wealth why others are starving, the | biggest problem is that when you reach a certain level of | wealth you can start influencing, or even controlling, | public policy. This obviously has the effect that public | funds are diverted away from the public into their pockets. | In the third world this process is quite direct, in the | rich world it's more about enacting policies that benefit | these oligarchs, at the expense of everyone else. | | This is a huge problem. | hourago wrote: | > Does someone earning more than you hurt you? | | The economy is not a zero sum game. But billionaires are | getting all the growth while middle class and the poor see | their share of the economy shrink. | | This is not about my neighbour earning more than me, it's | about corporations that take over big chunks of the | economy. | its_ethan wrote: | > billionaires are getting all the growth while middle | class and the poor see their share of the economy shrink. | | In your own sentence you had to use specific words "their | _share_ of the economy shrinks " can be true, while their | wealth increases. The economy is not a zero sum game. The | middle class could see their share of the economy | increase while also having standard of living, total | wealth, etc. all decreasing. | mrcheesebreeze wrote: | ryandrake wrote: | > There are plenty of people in the world who would think | that anything over $500/month is way more than enough for | one person. Should your compensation be reduced to that | amount? | | This is rhetoric that tries to confuse two totally | different scenarios in order to convince the majority to | oppose something that only hurts a tiny minority. Saying | "one person should not have 5 generations worth of wealth" | is not the same thing as saying "people should not make a | middle class salary". They aren't even similar. If there | was any place on earth where $1,000,000,000 was comparable | to $500/month in any way, you might have a point. | | > Does someone earning more than you hurt you? | | Yes. Without a doubt. Wealth is freely convertible to and | from political power, so outsized wealth translates into | outsized political/lawmaking power, which affects us all. | | Let's make an extreme example if you don't believe me: | Should sextillionaires exist? Do you think that maybe, just | maybe, someone having $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 might | have a negative effect on other people's lives? | | > Also... do billionaires employ people? | | Some do, some don't. Some non-billionaires employ people, | some don't. Employment was around long before billionaires. | It's not a requirement. | | To me, wealth should be like the speed of light. There | should be a limit, and it should be increasingly harder and | harder to approach (but never achieve) that limit as you | get wealthier. Not sure how you'd actually implement such a | Lorentzian economic speed limit, but it seems fair to me. | Make the limit high enough where at 99% of it, you can have | your needs and your family's needs fully met in the most | expensive neighborhood on earth, or whatever. | ipaddr wrote: | Those are just round zeros. You could obtain that much | money in some African countries over the last 50 years | for a few dollars. The latest cryto coin could give you | that many coins. But these are numbers trying to | represent wealth. | | Any cap you put on the top could have the effect of | reducing the value of a currency meaning the buying power | doesn't change. A billion cap would make your million | dollar house worth $100. However you slice it you are | poor and someone else is rich. | jquery wrote: | Seems like sextillionaires were pretty awful for the | economic stability of those African countries. You just | reinforced GP's point. | [deleted] | xtracto wrote: | > There are plenty of people in the world who would think | that anything over $500/month is way more than enough for | one person. Should your compensation be reduced to that | amount? | | Disclaimer: I live in a 3rd world country and my salary is | 1/3 of what the standard US salary is. | | YES, I do believe that everybody's compensation (including | mine) who are in the top 10% of the population should be | decreased/limited. Provided that their living costs are | adjusted so that the $500/month get you similar standard of | living to other nice places (say, Chile, Mexico, Spain, | Portugal, etc). | | The top 10% of the population hold 70% of the total wealth. | That's just crazy and unsustainable. How the 90% of the | population haven't turned on us is just sheer luck and a | political, security system that is rigged in our favor. | | I would be happy to be part of a "pay cut initiative" for | all the top 10% earners, if it meant equalizing | opportunities for everybody. I had the opportunity to grow | up and be friends with poor people who just did not have | the chance to succeed, so I don't believe the "poor people | are just lazy" narrative. There's good hard working people | that just never had a chance. Similarly how there is bad | rich people that just want to leech from others. | chrisseaton wrote: | > The top 10% of the population hold 70% of the total | wealth. That's just crazy and unsustainable. | | Been sustained so far throughout all of human history. | ggpsv wrote: | Quite the opposite actually. "all of human history" spans | at least 160,000 years and the inequality that you and | the parent comment to are alluding to is a rather modern | artifact. | | I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this comment | contributes to pernicious myths about the human | condition. If you're interested in this subject I would | recommend the book "The Dawn of Everything" by David | Graeber and David Wengrow. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | Might want to check your history books, because mine are | full of failed empires and revolutions. | chrisseaton wrote: | When they failed... did wealth redistribute, or was the | bulk immediately claimed by someone else? What examples | of civilisations without unequal wealth distribution are | you thinking of? | criley2 wrote: | Historically it was much, much worse. The only way you | can make an argument for saying inequality is greater now | (when global poverty/subsistence farming is at the lowest | % since human settlement 12000 years ago) is to point to | the sheer amount of wealth we generate compared to any | other period and nit pick about it's allocation. That's | fine, but if you want to go back to farming for your | life, like most humans for most of history, you'll | probably find it a worse life than being in a developed | country middle class, even if "your wealth is technically | more equal to a king than a middle class to a ceo" | RyanHamilton wrote: | What source are you basing that on? You can find | countless sources that show the 0.1% owning an ever | greater share: | https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us- | wealth-i... "Over the past three decades, the share of | household wealth owned by the top 0.1% has increased from | 7% to 22%." | criley2 wrote: | I'm basing that on global numbers, not national numbers. | Sure, I don't doubt that in developed economies | inequality is getting worse. | | But in the past 4 decades, I'll remind you that around | 800,000,000 Chinese (that's eight hundred million people) | were lifted above the global poverty line and were able | to stop subsistence farming. | https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press- | release/2022/04/01/l... | | So to say that global inequality is getting worse, when | billion+ have been lifted out of abject poverty in that | time, it's not correct to me. Things were worse 40 years | ago when billion+ more humans were below the global | poverty line, even if today billionaires are even richer | than the middle class. | owisd wrote: | There's a good video on how that $1.90 is arbitrary and | too low, and if you try to come up with a poverty line | from first principles, you end up more in the $5-$12 | range, where it doesn't paint such a great picture. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo2gwS4VpHc#t=19m16s | [deleted] | pojzon wrote: | Thats completely true, tho a peasent was working for his | master a lot less than we currently do for our masters. | | When we get 3days work week and 4 days of ,,time for my | stuff" we can go back to discussing that. | vkou wrote: | The peasant was working for their master a lot less | because if the master asked for more, the peasant would | literally starve to death, because he wouldn't have | enough hours in the day to work for himself. | | The ruling class will happily soak up all spare | productive capacity - and as the amount of work necessary | to keep someone clothed, sheltered, and fed went down, | that spare productive capacity grows, and more of it | flows upwards. | pojzon wrote: | Ok now how really it did look in history: | | Landlord was lending land to peasents - rich peasents, | because bottom cast did not even have a chance to talk to | landlord. | | For the land peasents got, they had to work for the | landlord specific number of days in a week. For some time | it was 1-2-3-4-5 days per week. Most common was 3 days. | | Thing is - the peasent was not obligated to do that work | himself. He could have sent a son, family member or even | hire someone. | | That way it was super easy to keep his agreement with the | landlord while mostly focus on his own farm. | | Who had it terrible were bottom, poor peasents that | worked for other peasents. | | They did not have their own land and were at mercy of | their "master peasents". | | They most likely had to work whole week or 5-6 days. | | They were more of a slave than a peasent tbh, but its a | hard disregarded truth. | | Current middle class in our times could be translated to | "master peasents" back in time. Slave peasents would be | the slave-wage ppl. | | When I discuss or compare medival peasents to current | corporation workers I always compare master peasents to | corposlaves. | | And master peasents had it super better than corposlaves | do now. | criley2 wrote: | The subsistence farm does not wait for your days off. You | will live your life according to its schedule, and it | does not care about sick days or vacation. | | To claim that an impoverished serf working land "had 4 | days off a week" is nonsense. They worked hard af for all | sunlight hours for some seasons, and had plenty of | leisure in times like the winter. On average, maybe | that's 4 days off, but let's not pretend that working the | land is not back breaking work. It's not leisure. If you | really think some 40 hour wfh coding job is harder work | than farming for your life, then there's no law saying | you can't buy some land and go off grid. You're welcome | to subsist. Hell you could land a few million subs on | youtube airing the experience, that category is all the | rage these days | pojzon wrote: | > To claim that an impoverished serf working land "had 4 | days off a week" | | Well.. noone said that. If you mind reading the comment | again. | | But its true that peasents had a lot more time to work on | their own stuff than on what master told them to do. | | Either way most peasents worked for higher tier peasent | because landlord often has hubdreds of hectars of land. | its_ethan wrote: | Grustaf wrote: | That particular ratio, if true, is not the issue. Someone | being one order of magnitude richer than someone else | does not necessarily damage society, the problem is how | much the richest 0.1% control. | dylan604 wrote: | with minor blips where the peasants revolt and take out | those above them only to settle back under the rule of | someone new. it is a minor annoyance to those amassing | wealth to keep in mind. | chrisseaton wrote: | Never really happened in my country. The second tier | complained at one point, and peacefully reached an | agreement with the top tier (Magna Carta.) Other than | that top families basically unchanged 1000 years. | Apocryphon wrote: | Uh, what about the time that Parliament decapitated the | king and established a Puritan dictatorship for a minute | chrisseaton wrote: | > for a minute | | Exactly. Didn't really change which broad group of | families were in control (some were lowered a peg through | taxes for supporting the wrong side.) | jjulius wrote: | >Never really happened in my country. | | >Other than that top families basically unchanged 1000 | years. | | So we've shifted the goalposts from "all of human | history" to "in my country" and only for the past "1000 | years". | chrisseaton wrote: | > So we've shifted the goalposts | | No... why do you think that? | | > The top 10% of the population hold 70% of the total | wealth. | | That's basically been the case everywhere, all the time. | In other countries the 'top 10%' has changed hands | through revolution, war, etc, but it's still 10% | controlling 70% (or whatever) - because they take the | last 10%'s 70% and carry on! No goal posts moved there. | | Someone asked a separate question about revolution, and I | said even that's not successfully happened where I live. | I wasn't making a broader point with that answer to that | question. | | > "all of human history" to "in my country" and only for | the past "1000 years" | | I mean... are you under some sort of misapprehension that | before 1000 and outside of the UK there was some kind of | democratic socialist consensus? Fraid not. | jjulius wrote: | It's fairly simple, really. You said that wealth ratios | have remained the same "for all of human history". | Someone came back and pointed out that it hasn't always | remained that way and there have certainly been blips. | You then responded by saying "not in my country" for the | past "1000 years". | | Well, according to your first assertion we're not | supposed to cover only your country for the past 1,000 | years. We're supposed to cover all of human history - | every nation, as far back as at least 10,000BCE. | chrisseaton wrote: | Think you're mis-reading or misunderstanding! | | > Someone came back and pointed out that it hasn't always | remained that way and there have certainly been blips | | The blips didn't change the ratios though. Ratios have | stayed the same. | | > You then responded by saying "not in my country" for | the past "1000 years". | | Yeah - my country hasn't really had those blips. And the | blips in other countries didn't change the ratios anyway, | just transferred who owned them, so it was a separate | point. | | > Well, according to your first assertion we're not | supposed to cover only your country for the past 1,000 | years. | | No it was a separate comment and point! | FabHK wrote: | I am fairly sure inequality is more extreme than that | (top 10% hold 70%) at the moment, and it was less bad in | the second half of the 20th century. The top US marginal | income tax rate was 90% in the 1960s, and 70% in the | 1970s, and it did not seem to discourage GDP growth or | innovation. | | https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical- | highes... | Aarostotle wrote: | We live in the most equal time in human history. The | actual standard of living of the average person in most | developed countries rivals that of royal families from | just a couple of centuries ago. | | Don't confuse monetary inequality with _wealth_ | inequality. Measure by the standard of living, not | monetary units. | | What are the actual differences between the life of the | average American worker and Jeff Bezos? It's not that | big. Jeff Bezos has the ability to buy luxuries most of | us could never dream of, sure, but what about the | essentials? | | Nearly everyone can get fresh, nutritious meat, as well | as fruits and vegetables. High quality milk and dairy | products. Frozen goods. Bacterial epidemics are unheard | of. Our recent viral pandemic increased annual deaths by | about 10-15% over baseline -- compare this to epidemics | which used to wipe out entire populations. Life | expectancy for all people, regardless of class, ranges | between 2-3x human life expectancy in a state of nature | (roughly 30 years). You can travel hundreds of miles in a | day for only a few hours of labor worth of money. You can | cross continents or oceans with a few day's of labor | worth of money. | | Sure, Bezos can have a fancier car with someone driving | or his own jet with a pilot flying, but at the end of the | day, you can both take off from LAX and land at JFK 6 | hours later. You're both going to eat 2,000 calories of | nutritious food. You both have running water. And, you're | sitting here, both able to communicate with everyone in | the world instantly. | | Let's not buy into the political propaganda about | inequality, the reality of the situation is right in | front of our eyes. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Lots of America struggles under the weight of trying to | pay for basic health care and dental (50% of Americans | have medical debt[1]) and for many education is utterly | out of reach. 11.4% of America lives in poverty (poverty | being defined as "a lack of those goods and services | which are commonly taken for granted by members of | mainstream society"). It's disingenuous to look at the | state of things and say that because we have cellphones | and cavemen didn't we're all doing fine. | | [1] | https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2021/10/13/50-of- | amer... | memish wrote: | They struggle more with being overweight. Most humans in | most of human history struggled with having enough food | and water to survive. They would trade their struggle for | ours in a heartbeat. | | Americans are the people who complain when the wifi goes | down or someone says the wrong word. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | And cavemen would have thought the Roman's life pretty | good too, but I don't know how that relates to the | average American and billionaires unless it's an attempt | to silence people and tell them to know their place. | Societal inequality can still be a very real issue even | if we're collectively on average doing better than a 19th | century chimney sweep. | Grustaf wrote: | The problem with rich people is not that they live too | comfortably, but that a person like Bezos can buy an | important media property and control the political | narrative that millions of people are exposed to. | ryandrake wrote: | > What are the actual differences between the life of the | average American worker and Jeff Bezos? | | Here are just a few massive differences between the life | of the average American worker and Jeff Bezos that have | nothing to do with buying luxury goods: | | 1. Jeff Bezos can get an audience with any | Congressperson, any State governor, most countries's | heads of state and probably the President of the US, with | a telephone call and likely with less than 24 hours | notice. That person will listen to and likely be | influenced by what he says. | | 2. Jeff Bezos's public statements can move global | financial markets. | | 3. Jeff Bezos can (and does) own and control mass media | companies which can amplify and downplay political issues | and shape the outcomes of elections. | | 4. Through philanthropy, Jeff Bezos can, if he wants, | simply decide what counts as a "public good" to be funded | and supported, as opposed to the public deciding through | the democratic process. Bezos is capable of offering an | amount of support for his causes that dwarfs government- | funding. We are merely lucky that billionaire | philanthropists have so far focused on good things like | curing malaria and not on evil. | chrisseaton wrote: | > Jeff Bezos can get an audience with any Congressperson, | any State governor, most countries's heads of state and | probably the President of the US, with a telephone call | | Can he? | LunaSea wrote: | Didn't you see how US state politicians danced to get the | new Amazon offices located in their state? | chrisseaton wrote: | So some politicians took calls when it was directly | relevant to their area of concern? | its_ethan wrote: | None of what you've said about Bezos is dependent on him | having wealth though. If you could somehow construct a | functioning society without money, there would still be | _someone_ who has the exact same power /influence that | you've described here. | | Basically, when you remove money, something else becomes | the currency you're describing. Taking away billionaires | wealth might actually make it harder to identify the | people who have this influence. Rather than news outlets | writing articles every other day about Jeff, you'd have | some shady person high up in some unelected bureaucracy | getting to wield this power. How is that better? | kansface wrote: | No one actually paid those rates, so it goes. The | narrative is that part of lowering the rates was closing | the loop holes... | its_ethan wrote: | Just curious, if 10% of people holding 70% of wealth is | unreasonable, how do you reconcile 1% of Spotify artists | getting 90% of all "streams"? | | Basically, you're saying that the current distribution is | crazy/unsustainable (and maybe it is) but the | distribution is actually not totally out of whack with | the 80/20 rule (or Pareto principle). | | Just wondering where your confidence comes from that a | functioning society doesn't actually depend somewhat on | that distribution? i.e. that the general populace's sense | of "fair" isn't _actually_ correctly calibrated at this | distribution? | wwarner wrote: | Actually, it's not simply the proportion, but the fact | that over time the proportion of wealth held by the | richest has been growing really fast. So, to use your | analogy, I agree that a small number artists commanding | the lion's share of attention can be fair, but if over | time, an ever smaller number commanded an ever greater | share, very soon every one would be listening to one | artist and one song, and fair or not I don't think that | would be good for Spotify, audiences, artists or anyone | else. | its_ethan wrote: | I think there's a valid point here, but I also think (at | least anecdotally) that we are trending in the direction | of _more people_ listening to _fewer songs_. (Would love | to see some Spotify data on that front lol) | | I would argue that it's not going to collapse to 1 artist | or 1 song for a similar reason that all wealth will never | be in the hands of 1 person. If the rate of change (or | just raw distribution) in wealth is unhealthy, that will | present itself in the form of a less healthy economy. | | That will likely cause a bit of a churn and | redistribution to sort of self correct. There's also the | fact that wealth typically doesn't survive through | generations all that well. If this _didn 't_ happen, the | Rockafeller's/ Vanderbilt's/ Carnagie's from the past | would still have the top wealth holdings - sure they are | still incredibly well off and have a huge advantage from | family name, but per a Forbes list none of them are in | the top 2500 wealthiest. | criley2 wrote: | The problem isn't the 91% to the 99% in my opinion. In | the United States, the 99th percentile for income is | ~$300,000, which is a ton of money in a low cost of | living (rural) area and a decent amount of money in a | high cost of living (urban) area. | | But these are not the "capitalist class". They don't own | significant portions of a company unless they started a | small business (a lawyer or doctor running their own | practice). They also generally had to go through an | enormous burden to get there. A doctor for example might | be nearly 40 years old with $500,000+ in debt before | they're making $300k, and many doctors will never make | that much, period. | | The funny part of "limiting income" is that it only | affects the working rich, not the capitalist class. Steve | Job's salary was $1 and many CEO's famously have | basically no salary and compensation in stock. | | So what do you do? Tax their stock sales? We do and | should do more. Force them to sell their stock for the | benefit of the taxpayer? Ban them from even owning large | amounts of the company? Have the government automatically | own part of the company? All of these sound yikes to me. | Phenomenit wrote: | The same limits can be applied to organizations and | constellations of organizations. | toephu2 wrote: | > if it meant equalizing opportunities for everybody | | It doesn't though. Taxing the rich, limiting the | existence of billionaires is not going to do anything for | equalizing opportunities. | | If you think so, then please tell me the name of one | efficiently-run government organization? | Johnny555 wrote: | _If you think so, then please tell me the name of one | efficiently-run government organization?_ | | Why is government judged on efficiency rather than | service? | | If there's a government agency with money to give to | vision impaired people, and they set up a website | (graphics heavy, non-ADA compliant of course) as the only | way to sign up for the payments, that department would be | extremely efficient - they might only be able to reach a | fraction of their target market, but they'd do so very | efficiently with little overhead and they'd even have | money left over since they had so few applicants, so they | could cut the budget next year! | | In contrast, if that same agency took $100M of their fund | to set up offices across the country, and hire outreach | staff to drive to the homes of qualified applicants to | help them apply, that wouldn't be very efficient, but it | would provide better service. | | Government is not a business and shouldn't be run like | one. | dlp211 wrote: | > If you think so, then please tell me the name of one | efficiently-run government organization? | | Please let this trope die. The US government is | generally, and especially when it comes to welfare | programs, efficient. | toephu2 wrote: | Welfare is one of the least efficient government programs | in the U.S. It's rife with corruption. What makes you | think it's efficient? | | "It currently stands at about 25 percent, as did in the | 1970s. This means the ability of the poor to sustain a | higher level of income independently of transfers has not | changed over time." | | [1] https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/eco | nomic_b... | fallingknife wrote: | All of my experience dealing with the government says the | exact opposite. | corrral wrote: | > It doesn't though. Taxing the rich, limiting the | existence of billionaires is not going to do anything for | equalizing opportunities. | | > If you think so, then please tell me the name of one | efficiently-run government organization? | | How are these two passages connected? If there's one | efficiently-run government organization (there are, even | in the US--benefits programs tend to be quite efficient, | contrary to "common knowledge") then that proves... what? | That taxing the rich would equalize opportunities? The | two things have practically nothing to do with one | another. | int_19h wrote: | Someone _earning_ more doesn 't hurt me. | | Someone taking the wealth that other people have produced | with their labor is not earning, though. And a lot of us do | think that _earning_ 300x what the average worker does is a | physical impossibility. | Johnny555 wrote: | _There are plenty of people in the world who would think | that anything over $500 /month is way more than enough for | one person_ | | You're not making a serious point if you're looking at | world income to guide policy in the USA, or any other first | world country, you're just making up a strawman. | | _do billionaires employ people_ | | I'm sure they have a small household staff, maybe security, | yacht staff, private pilots, so maybe in the small | hundreds. | | But Tesla employees a 100,000 people, SpaceX employes | 10,000 - both of those companies would exist regardless of | Elon Musk's personal wealth. In fact, having so much wealth | in one person is a liability to the company -- Musk can | singlehandedly tank Tesla's stock. | oh_sigh wrote: | I'm just a run of the mill average joe, who has a rock that | has been in my family for generations. Turns out some weird | little cult likes my rock and wants to buy it for $1B. | | Should I be forced to sell my rock, because I'm getting a | $500M tax bill from the government because some weird little | cult said they would pay $1B for it - regardless of whether I | want to sell my rock? | yunohn wrote: | I love how this thread is full of people simping for | billionaires with absolutely ridiculous strawman scenarios | like this one... | googlryas wrote: | Can you explain how it is a strawman? Someone else | accused it of being a strawman, but then could only claim | that it is "contrived", which is not the same as a | strawman. | | So where's the strawman? Would the person in this | scenario not be affected by a proposed wealth tax? | | Also, I don't really get how it is "simping for | billionaires" in the slightest. If I said that | billionaires shouldn't be pulled from their mansions and | lynched, am I simping for them too? | owisd wrote: | It's not a straw man, I believe a better idiom would be | 'the tail wagging the dog', i.e. you're using an extreme | edge case to argue against the big picture proposal. A | real tax would include the small picture details: payment | plans, equity swaps, valuation tribunals, etc to cover | the oddball cases. But none of that would matter, you | would sell it and net the $500M. | googlryas wrote: | Even with payment plants ,equity swaps, valuation | tribunals, it would still be the case that someone with | more money than me can force me to sell anything I own to | them, by placing a value higher than I can pay on it? | evanlivingston wrote: | Yes? | | Whether you're receiving the value of the asset or not, | you're locking up the value of the asset and preventing a | larger group of people from benefiting from the value of | the asset, which is sort of the point of a wealth tax. | Kon5ole wrote: | The actual value being locked up is surely held by the | cult, not the owner of the rock? They're the ones who | claim to have a bn to spend on a rock after all, the | other guy just has a rock. Why can't the cult spend their | money on something better than the rock in the first | place? | | In actuality it's not a rock of course. For a founder of | a company the situation is more like you've spent most of | your life building something you believe in and suddenly | you have to sell it because a group of strangers believe | that your thing is worth more money than you've ever seen | in your life, and the government wants taxes based on | that belief. That seems fundamentally unfair and wrong at | least to me. | oh_sigh wrote: | What is the locked up value of the rock? I like it | because it reminds me of my grandfather, and the cult | that will buy it will lock it in their storage room. | | My point is: With a wealth tax, anyone with money can | take anything they want from anyone without money, even | if the person without money doesn't value something in | the same way that the person with money does. | dlp211 wrote: | This is a contrived example that you've twisted yourself | in knots to try and justify. There isn't a person on this | planet that wouldn't sell an heirloom for $1 Billion | unless the heirloom was actually worth ballpark $1 | Billion. | | The people that wouldn't sell it for a $1 Billion are the | people that would give it a way for free, ie: those that | have little value for money. | dcow wrote: | No it's really not. It's an illustrative example of how a | wealth tax would (fail to) work. The issue at the core is | that items only have value while they are exchanged. Fiat | is the only thing with the characteristic of persistent | value. So trying to tax standing wealth is fraught | because wealth doesn't actually exist in that form. | Apocryphon wrote: | Then simply don't tax fixed assets. Sure, sure, then | people will simply avoid taxes by converting cash and | other assets into properties that are not directly | taxable, but that's just how these cat-and-mouse games | go. | Johnny555 wrote: | _Should I be forced to sell my rock, because I 'm getting a | $500M tax bill from the government because some weird | little cult said they would pay $1B for it - regardless of | whether I want to sell my rock?_ | | If you don't want to sell your rock, then set up a family | trust to hold the rock with the provision that it can never | be sold, then the rock will have effectively zero taxable | value and you can keep it in the family forever. | | If you don't want to do that because you might want to sell | it some day, then it's not really a family heirloom, it's | an investment. | | Or, put the rock in a trust, tell the cult that they can | take ownership in 100 years and have access to it once a | year for ceremonies if they'll pay you $100M today. | trgn wrote: | There's a great thought proposal on how to tax assets | fairly. In this system, you are taxed at the self-assessed | worth of an asset. However, if somebody bids over that | price, you are obliged either to sell it to them, or raise | your self-assessment. | | It's somewhat of a game (joke perhaps), usually used in the | context of ways to fairly assess land value. | flashgordon wrote: | So here is the thing. Your rock, your wish. It is wierd | when you get to take interest free lines of credit on the | 1B valuation on the rock and never pay the 500m in taxes :) | adastra22 wrote: | Either the rock gets sold and the income is realized and | the taxes are paid then, or the rock ends up being | worthless and the loan margin called for possession of | the rock and the remaining value is taxed as income. | Either way the taxes get paid in the end. | | Tax deference is not tax avoidance. | whimsicalism wrote: | I have the rock, it is now worth 1 billion dollars. I | take out a 50 million dollar loan from the rock and put | it into the stock market, which lets say has 2% average | real returns over interest (probably low if i have 1 | billion in collateral). | | I pass the rock on to my children and die 20 years later. | The 50 million is now worth 74 million. | | Both the rock and 74 million are stepped up to their | current value when I pass it on to my children. The | children repay the loan with their 50 million and now | have 24 million and the 1 billion dollar rock still, tax | free. | | How is that not tax avoidance? | adastra22 wrote: | Your issue here is the cost-basis step-up on inheritance, | not anything to do with loans. | whimsicalism wrote: | I was just explaining how tax deference can be tax | avoidance. | trgn wrote: | That's the key one. | | The tax code, today, in practice, already frowns very | much on tax deference, and tries to inhibit it when | possible. The AMT-schedule is purposely designed to pull | tax forward, and precisely discourage strategies for tax | deference e.g. to counter the abuses that would arise by | using stock-based (or cult rocks) compensation to avoid | income tax. | | Property tax (which is a wealth tax) is another way to | siphon off tax on unrealized wealth. | whimsicalism wrote: | AFAIK neither of those things would stop the scheme I | just described. | trgn wrote: | I'm not disagreeing with you. I only added that, from a | tax collector perspective, tax deference and tax | avoidance are on the same spectrum, and they will seek | out mechanisms to make deference impossible. I gave an | example of one of these mechanisms at the federal level | (AMT) and one at the municipal level (property tax). But | yes, doesn't mean there are other strategies to defer | ("avoid") taxes still left. | flashgordon wrote: | So taking the avoidance vs deference analogy. If I borrow | money for car, house, boat, plane tickets, but never have | to pay it back where does that leave my obligations? | adastra22 wrote: | You do have to pay back eventually though. Why are you | assuming the loan never comes due or is margin-called? | thefaux wrote: | Why is the rock yours? How did your family attain ownership | of it? If the rock means little to you, why should you have | it rather than the cult that actually values it? What if | the cult wants to preserve the rock but you want to destroy | it even though that will cause great pain to those who care | about it? Why should you have permanent ownership of a rock | just because your parents had it? | oh_sigh wrote: | > Why is the rock yours? How did your family attain | ownership of it? | | The rock is mine because my family bought land a few | hundred years ago, and the previous owner thought the | rock was ugly and let it for us. | | > If the rock means little to you, why should you have it | rather than the cult that actually values it? | | The rock means a lot to me, because it reminds me of my | ancestors. I value it, but I just don't have a billion | dollars to attach to it as its value. | | > What if the cult wants to preserve the rock but you | want to destroy it even though that will cause great pain | to those who care about it? | | I dunno. I think it is my rock and I can do with it what | I want. But I don't want to destroy it, I just want to | keep it where it has been for the past 200 years, near my | family home's fireplace. | | > Why should you have permanent ownership of a rock just | because your parents had it? | | Because that's how ownership works. If anyone can come | take anything from you at any point, then I don't think | you can ever be considered to own something. | elefanten wrote: | You set the table to abolish the notion of property. It's | hard to extrapolate what effects that would have on | modern societies... it hasn't really been tried. I'm not | saying it's an inherently bad idea, but the proponents of | that kind of idea always seem to paint rosy visions based | on extrapolations from inappropriate samples. | | Maybe you can say you don't have to fully abolish | property. But it remains especially hard to predict what | second order behaviors any particular implementation | would bring about, and what steady state would result | from them. | | Per your example, if the expected ruling of society would | be that gp doesn't get to keep the rock because they | don't "care" about it... well, maybe people in their | position would suddenly find themselves caring about the | rock very greatly. Not even cynically -- if the choice | presented to you is "value or no value", the limbic | system suddenly becomes very persuasive. | Apocryphon wrote: | This strawman parable is so elegant in its contrivance that | it deserves a Nebula Award. | googlryas wrote: | Can you explain how it is a strawman? I've never seen any | kind of wealth tax proposed that takes into account how | the wealth was acquired, or what form the wealth was in. | Apocryphon wrote: | It is an incredibly contrived, fantastical scenario that | is too grating to even consider. | googlryas wrote: | Of course it is a contrived, fantastical scenario. But | the point is: Does it meaningfully deviate from the key | points for any wealth tax scenario? | Apocryphon wrote: | A wealth tax scenario, like all taxes in real life, will | have its share of exceptions, carve-outs, and loopholes. | Meaning the wealth assessment process will inevitably be | far more involved than "a weird little cult offered a | billion dollars for it." | | Now, from a parable perspective, does the post mirror the | _principle_ of how wealth taxes work? Maybe, if you 're | willing to equate _the entire market_ (or whatever | communal entity we 're using for the basis of assessment) | to a weird little cult. | googlryas wrote: | Ok, it is not a weird little cult, but literally everyone | in the world who wants my rock because it is so | beautiful. I don't see how that tangibly affects any part | of the parable - which is forcing me to sell something I | own because someone else with more money than I have | wants it. | Apocryphon wrote: | Presumably physical collectible assets (maybe also | virtual ones too for the NFT crowd) will be assessed | differently from more liquid assets for the basis of | evaluating a wealth tax, especially in the event of | surging valuations from the collectibles market. If real | life taxes, like say property tax in California, can be | reined in by measures like Proposition 13, then there's | no reason why a real-life wealth tax won't be subject to | all sorts of internal controls and effects from lobbying. | Thus protecting the "run of the mill average Joe" from | having to suddenly sell his mythical rock. | googlryas wrote: | What about surging valuations in the equities market? If | I'm worth $1B for a few moments because of a surging | valuation, and then the government takes $900M of that, | and then the stock crashes back to 1/100th of its peak, | do I get my shares back? | Apocryphon wrote: | Just as current income taxes have a hard deadline in | which financial assets are assessed, your extreme edge | case is only applicable one day a year, rendering it ever | the more trivial. | | Not to mention, the calculation for wealth would probably | be based on something less temporary than a fleeting | moment in the markets. | | Finally, the government would not directly take shares, | so they would always be owned by you. Presumably with the | stock price so much reduced you can simply purchase more | at a pittance. | googlryas wrote: | I'm not sure if I would particularly care that it was | just an edge case that caused me to miss out on $99M. | | They wouldn't take shares, but I would be forced to sell | shares in order to pay the tax bill, because I don't | actually have that money just laying around. So I had 10M | shares @ $1/share, share prices go up to $100/share. I | get hit with a $900M tax bill and sell 9M shares in order | to pay it. Price goes back down to $1/share, leaving me | with 1M shares. How exactly should I purchase more at a | pittance? I spent all the money I didn't even have paying | the tax bill, there's nothing left in my bank account to | buy any shares. | Apocryphon wrote: | Buy it on margin, if the price has gone down so low you | can easily get it approved | googlryas wrote: | Taking out a loan against an asset to buy more of that | asset sounds like a horrible financial move. | Apocryphon wrote: | You can use your existing 1M shares as collateral | seventhtiger wrote: | It's a realistic scenario for illiquid assets like art | and land. Antique roadshow has real examples filmed on | camera. | Apocryphon wrote: | Right, and there would be exceptions made for edge cases | like "someone uncovers a hidden treasure trove" or "oil | is discovered" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31745780 | googlryas wrote: | So it is no longer "Billionaires shouldn't exist", but | "Billionaires who build a successful business shouldn't | exist, but if you uncover a hidden treasure trove you can | be a billionaire" | Apocryphon wrote: | If you find a treasure trove worth billions of dollars, | it is probably also of such archeological, historical, | and cultural significance you are doing an immense | service to humanity that you deserve it | googlryas wrote: | Maybe it is just someone's old pile of gold. Like the San | Jose galleon. Sure, it will be cool when it is raised, | but I'm not exactly sure that it is going to change the | world by bringing it up rather than just leaving it | there. | | By this same standard, maybe Amazon is doing an immense | service to humanity, and that is why so many people use | the site daily, and actually enjoy doing so. So maybe | Bezos should get to keep his billions as well. | Apocryphon wrote: | Maybe I never weighed in on the question of whether there | should be billionaires or not, but you have simply | projected a strawman upon me, which is fitting because | this whole thread was started because I said the | aforementioned parable was a strawman. | | Currently, gold retails at $1808 an ounce. So it would | take over 15.6 metric tons of gold to be even worth a | billion dollars. That is substantially more than an "old | pile", and probably of historical worth, like contained | in a ruined temple or wartime vault or something | colinmhayes wrote: | Yes, if your rock is worth twice as much to the cult as it | is to you you should have to sell it. | dcow wrote: | No. The rock is worth vastly more to the owner than the | cult which is why they won't sell it. However, the value | is intrinsic... it's priceless. It's worth infinitely | much to the owner regardless of how much anybody else | thinks it should be worth. Therefore, it's impossibly to | tax the owner infinitely for their intrinsically valuable | rock... | memish wrote: | That's an arbitrary cut off and it's not just about whether | they will work less hard or not. It's about effective capital | allocation. If they earned their wealth through smart capital | allocation, why would you want to remove capital from proven | allocators and forcibly move it to the least effective | allocators? | | TLDR. Elon makes vastly better use of capital than the | government does. He turned $180M into SpaceX and Tesla. They | turn $180M into some bombs and maybe an unfinished train | station if we're lucky. | hooande wrote: | buying twitter at $54/share is an effective use of capital? | memish wrote: | At the time, yes. Today one could get it for a lot | cheaper. | countvonbalzac wrote: | This^ + how much capital did Elon Musk actually allocate | to Tesla and SpaceX? It was much closer to $100m than $1 | billion or $100 billion. | karpierz wrote: | Lots of hidden assumptions here: | | 1. The objective of public policy is to maximize the | efficiency of capital allocation. | | 2. Who is efficient at capital allocation is independent of | public policy. | | 3. Efficiency of capital allocation is measured by stock | market capitalization. | | 1) would assume that building a Lamborghini Veneno Roadster | is a better allocation of capital than building 10 homes. | Or treating 100,000 cases of malaria. | | 2) would assume that someone who benefits from government | subsidies is intrinsically better at capital allocation | than someone who doesn't. | | 3) would assume that tulips sellers were really, really, | good capital allocators for a while, and then suddenly were | terrible capital allocators. Or that the number of cars | produced isn't really a relevant metric for an auto | company. | FabHK wrote: | Very good points. Externalities and other market failures | are also better addressed by governments than capital | markets, as is well understood and was conceded even by | Milton Friedman. | whimsicalism wrote: | > they earned their wealth through smart capital | allocation, why would you want to remove capital from | proven allocators and forcibly move it to the least | effective allocators? | | 1. You'd certainly want to remove it before they pass it on | to their children -> 60% of all wealth in the US is | inherited, mostly by the very wealthy. | | 2. Those most likely to scoop up redistributed capital are | the efficient capital allocators at _current time_ , which | is better than calcified structure of efficient capital | allocator from 1970 who has just put their money into index | funds and passed their wealth on to their children. | | 3. Diminishing marginal utility of the dollar means strong | first-order utility gains from redistribution of wealth | which would need very large second-order impact on capital | allocation effectiveness (and impact on behavior) to harm | net utility. | formerkrogemp wrote: | SpaceX was funded by government contracts awarded to | SpaceX. 'Ol Musky doesn't wave a magic wand for discerning | capital deployment. He just gets lucky. | memish wrote: | Luck doesn't itself explain being able to repeat that | level of complex achievement. You need >99 percentile in | energy, intelligence and curiosity to pull that off. | Apocryphon wrote: | He was certainly lucky that the Obama administration was | around to lend him money to finish the Model S and not | declare bankruptcy, sure. | madrox wrote: | I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm more comfortable with | wealth in the hands of progressive billionaires than a | government that's likely to go on a regressive tear every | four years. | endorphine wrote: | False dichotomy? | Veen wrote: | You're making a big assumption that billionaires are or | will remain "progressive," whatever that word means to you. | fleddr wrote: | I think the wealth question is phrased wrongly: how much | wealth is somebody allowed to have? Rather the question | should be: how is such excessive wealth generated in the | first place? | | Billionaire level wealth comes into existence by means of a | concept that is alien and bizarre when you think more deeply | about it: | | "Percentage-based future-facing ownership". | | Also known as "shares". Emphasis on the word "percentage". | You're the 30% majority shareholder and founder of a startup | worth some 1 million USD in total. | | 10 years later, it's turned into an empire. You're still the | 30% shareholder but now of something worth 1 trillion. | | Superficially this looks reasonable to people but it is in | fact bizarre. You scale up wealth from 300K to 300B just by | the societal agreement that there is such a thing as | percentage-based ownership of a variable thing. Which is a | concept that is entirely made up and does not exist in | physical reality. In a way it is future-capitalism. You lay | claim on value that doesn't even exist yet nor will it | actually be produced by you typically. | | This jump from 300K to 300B can't be justified or explained | by "hard work", risk or any other personal attribute. | | Imagine you go fishing with friends. It's your boat. You paid | for it and need to maintain it. So the friends agree to give | 50% of fish caught that day to you, to cover costs and as a | reward. | | The next day you meet your friends again and declare: by the | way, actually 50% of all fish in the pacific ocean are mine. | | How so? | | I got "fish shares". | | But you wouldn't do any of the fishing??? | | Fish shares don't care. | lr4444lr wrote: | It's not how hard they work - it's the risk-adjusted | decisions they're willing to take. | halfmatthalfcat wrote: | Why stop at $100M? Why can't $1M be the most? | sokoloff wrote: | Because that provides ~$40K/yr in income during retirement. | That seems like...way not enough to hold out as the | absolute maximum. | randomhodler84 wrote: | A) inflation b) try to buy a house for 1M in a hcol place. | Why would you set the max wealth less than that of a house, | something that most humans have been able to own for most | of human history, now out of reach for a generation. | | You need to realize that absolute numbers are meaningless, | they are all relative to costs and inflation. Trying to | lock down fiat absolutes is a moving target. | | What is a realistic wealth limit for BTC, out of 21M? | | Should nobody own more than 1/21Mth the Bitcoin? Less? | More? | FabHK wrote: | Why can you only vote/have sex/drink/gamble when you're 18 | yrs? Why not at 12, why not at 30? | | The fact that there is a gray zone does not mean that no | border must be drawn. | cute_boi wrote: | Well, there should be some objective parameters to | determine such things. | | We can't vote/sex/drink/gamble because it is assumed that | young people sucks. Maybe looking at the statistics | government decided 18 years is good? I think if 12 year | old can pass driving test then they should be allowed to | drive. If 30 years can't pass, they must not be allowed | to drive. | | So, how about we find objective paramters to determine | what should be the best border to determine the elites? | May be it is 100x minimum_salary? There are plenty of | option I guess. | dlp211 wrote: | You know it's this kind of stuff that actually makes the | tax code so complicated, but because you insist: | | An amount of wealth that would provide you a top %0.1 | lifestyle if you were to retire today based on a standard | 60/40 portfolio (to be adjusted every N years to reflect | new data) and actuary tables. | | It doesn't have to be this exact policy, but this isn't | hard to think something like this up. | ipnon wrote: | "Probably" seems the key word here. Many people have a | slight preference for a policy with wide ranging | ramifications. It's better to be unconvicted on matters | that are inconsequential, like whether tea or coffee is the | superior beverage. | iLoveOncall wrote: | Because nobody wants to be living in 1970's China? | memish wrote: | Why can't $100,000? | freyr wrote: | Reminds of a CEO's tweet yesterday that software engineers | making $400k+ are the real problem, and it got lots of likes. | Today we day a billion is too much. Where do you draw the | line (obviously, start with the billionaires and not with the | workers), and who gets to decide? | cozos wrote: | Link to tweet please? | foundart wrote: | https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1536406121249796096 | Johnny555 wrote: | I don't think reaction to a twitter post is a good judge of | how it would be received here -- many of the software | engineers here are probably already earning over $400K in | total comp. Well, at least before the recent market drop. | pgodzin wrote: | I don't think engineering salaries are "the real problem" | but, they certainly are "a" problem for many companies | whose business models don't print cash the same way FAANG | companies do but try to compete on comp, and that's what | the tweet was getting at. | jerry1979 wrote: | I'm not settled on this yet. I'm from the USA, and one thing | that concerns me is the geopolitics of billionaires. What | happens when USA taxes billionaires out of existence? Russia | and China still have billionaires. Does that do something to | the power relationships in the world? Is there such a thing | as "our" billionaires? | | The other question I have has to do with feudalism. If we let | "our" billionaires exist, does that mean that we keep | feudalistic pressures at bay? Or do we enhance those | pressures? Is that even the right question? | tshaddox wrote: | Would you apply that same form of argument to everything | else that is illegal or strongly disincentivized? "We | shouldn't ban/disincentivize x because people will just go | do x in some other country" doesn't seem like an argument I | would make for a large range of x's. | munificent wrote: | _> What happens when USA taxes billionaires out of | existence?_ | | This is a really good question. | | I believe the answer is that the USA will be better able to | outcompete those countries that do have them. History has | shown time and again that massive inequality is a huge | barrier to maximizing the productivity of all of a | society's members. | | It leads to cynism and corruption and breaks down | cooperation. It forces a society to spend valuable | resources on policing in order to keep the poor taking from | the rich. It's just economically incredibly inefficient. | You need some level of inequality to incentivize people but | once you go beyond that, it's a net harm. | kortilla wrote: | > believe the answer is that the USA will be better able | to outcompete those countries that do have them | | Based on what? The US already outcompetes these other | countries in business success and average citizen income. | What countries don't have billionaires that are | competitive? | | > History has shown time and again that massive | inequality is a huge barrier to maximizing the | productivity of all of a society's members. | | History has literally never shown this. This is the first | time we've had massive inequality while still having a | solid middle class. The jury is still out on whether the | instability of the past was just because of excessive | poverty and no upward mobility or because wealthy people | were there. | oblio wrote: | For every localized case, including critical ones such as | the army, historically super rich and powerful people | would distort the system. | | There are countless examples of rich or powerful and | connected people buying officer posts, for example, and | meritocracies (= equality of chances) stomping all over | these corruped systems. | | There's little reason to believe rich people willingly or | not, do not distort every market they're in. That's why | they become rich, to be powerful. | Johnny555 wrote: | _Does that do something to the power relationships in the | world?_ | | The fact that you're even asking that is a reason we | shouldn't have billionaires -- world power relationships | shouldn't be based on the wealth of individual citizens. | | For example, what did Musk _really_ talk about when he met | with the president of Brazil? Did he represent American | interests, Amazon Inc 's interests, or Elon Musk's | interests? | nostrademons wrote: | Are you advocating against billionaires & capitalism, or | against power relationships? | | In theoretically egalitarian systems like communism, a | committee makes decisions about how to allocate | resources. Then whoever holds most sway over the | committee holds sway over resource allocation. If you do | it by direct democracy, then whoever owns the news media | & ad platforms (or has money to do massive PR campaigns | and ad buys) holds sway over resource allocation. You | can't escape this: _somebody_ is going to make the | decisions, unless you just run the world by computers and | have humans slot in for menial tasks. | pessimizer wrote: | The question is who they're beholden to, i.e. who they | derive that power from. The problem with the person with | the most sway over a committee being able to make a | decision is less because: | | 1) The fact that it's necessary to " _hold sway_ " is a | result of the power not actually being held by that | person, but being loaned to that person by the rest of | the committee in a way that can be withdrawn at any time. | | 2) The committee members are all subject to the process | that chooses them. _That 's_ the power center, and the | character of that process defines the legitimacy of what | the committee does. If a billionaire chooses them, the | committee is a mask. If the people being governed choose | them, that's the basis of popular sovereignty, and the | justification for post-Enlightenment government in | general. | | > whoever owns the news media & ad platforms (or has | money to do massive PR campaigns and ad buys) holds sway | over resource allocation. | | You're talking about other billionaires. The conversation | is about not having billionaire. | | So this boils down to if billionaires choose a committee, | billionaires will run things, and if people vote for a | committee and billionaires control all of the information | that those people get, billionaires will run things. You | _can_ escape this if you don 't have billionaires. | dadoge wrote: | Good luck getting competing countries to agree on banning | billionaires in one fowl swoop. | | This is a very idealistic and impossible to ever | implement take | kordlessagain wrote: | So then you are also OK with gutting capitalism and | limiting company's abilities to make mad profits? | Because, you can't have one without the other. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Why do you think a wealth tax would limit a companies | abilities to make "mad profits"? | arrosenberg wrote: | Or distribute the profits more broadly? No need to be | dramatic. | yellowapple wrote: | If we can't have capitalism without neofeudalist | exploitation of the working class for the sake of | enriching a privileged ownership class, then yes, I would | very much prefer to gut capitalism. | Johnny555 wrote: | I don't understand how a tax on personal wealth guts | capitalism and limits a company's ability to make mad | profits? | gammabetadelta wrote: | smsm42 wrote: | Why not btw? I mean, why is it worse for somebody to have | power because he worked and invested for decades and made | optimal decisions (and probably some luck) than for | somebody to have power because he was born into the right | family, knows all the right people in The Machine, has | nice hair and is able to conceal his rampaging cocaine | habit long enough to make himself too big to fail? | | I get that "wealth gets power" is not ideal, but the | alternatives we can see around don't seem to be much | better. Somebody will have the power, and we as a society | would need some proxy to use so that it won't lead to a | disaster. Being able to create and run successful | businesses (yes, I know not all rich people are self- | made, etc. - it's an imperfect proxy, but to a large | measure a working one) doesn't look that bad, compared to | "being born with right last name" or "being born with the | correct facial features"... | guelo wrote: | > has nice hair and is able to conceal his rampaging | cocaine habit long enough to make himself too big to | fail? | | You are indoctrinated into believing that democracy | cannot work and good government is impossible. | rglullis wrote: | > good government is impossible. | | At the scale of continental countries like US (or any | BRIC country), it is. The decision makers are simply too | far removed from the people who get to live with the | policies. | smsm42 wrote: | I am indoctrinated by the reality I am observing daily. | And before you are tempted to tell me "oh, it's because | $not_my_favorite_political_party prevents | $my_favorite_political party from achieving its true | potential as the paragon of democracy" - this happens | regardless of your tribal squabbles. | Philip-J-Fry wrote: | I don't think anyone who says a billionaire shouldn't | have power also believes that someone born into the right | family should have power. Ideally those in power should | be democratically elected by the people they hold power | over and be protected from lobbying attempts by wealthy | individuals. | | Someone like Elon Musk having political influence is a | bad thing because he's raging capitalist that can, will, | and does exploit those below him. It's why he has such a | love for his Chinese labour force. They have less rights | and they will work 16 hour days in his factory making the | cars that make him money. | | Elon Musk is great as a wealthy private businessman, | that's where capitalism firmly belongs. But he has no | place in any sort of politics. Countries aren't run like | businesses. | xapata wrote: | > (and probably some luck) | | I'd reverse the skill and luck relationship. Success at | that magnitude is almost entirely luck (and probably a | little skill). | smsm42 wrote: | When one becomes rich because of one IPO that went right | - ok, let's say it's luck. When one creates several | successful businesses in a row - no, sorry, I can't say | "it's just dumb luck" anymore, it's more realistic to | assume there's something else involved. | Johnny555 wrote: | Yeah, after the first successful IPO, the traveling IPO | CEO has contacts at investment banks, media houses, etc | and is on a first-name basis with many key analysts. | That's why they keep getting brought in to help a company | IPO, after you've done one, the subsequent ones are | easier. | nemothekid wrote: | Taleb has a more succint way of putting it[1], but no it | can still be luck just like hitting black in roulette | several times in a row can also be luck. | | [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/nntaleb/status/15341727735 | 8051328... | Domenic_S wrote: | Hitting black multiple times in roulette is _always_ luck | (barring cheating). | | What the tweet is saying, and it seems right, is that | looking at a probability graph the _only_ way to get the | billionaire-like outcome /outlier is to dramatically | increase volatility, i.e. bet on long odds. If everyone | went to work, maxed out their 401k, bought blue-chip | stocks, and called it a day, basically nobody would have | outlier net worth. But some people choose to increase the | volatility of their money (buying crypto, starting a | company, options trading, whatever) and as you'd expect | 99.9999% of them don't get rich and the rest of them get | uber-rich. | whimsicalism wrote: | There's no such thing as too big to fail in democratic | politics and it is not a deterministic process of knowing | people in "The Machine." | | FWIW, most wealthy people are wealthy because of | inherited holdings and 60% of all wealth in the US is | inherited. | paisawalla wrote: | There is significant income mobility in the US, which is | why "the one-percent" discourse consistently fails to | resonate with Americans. When 73% of Americans have spent | at least a year earning a top 20% income [0], focusing on | the inherited wealth of others comes off as whining. As | long people feel that the pie grows, and that they can | move themselves forward, these observations are at best | statistical curiosities. They feel very much of a piece | with the deboonkers on Twitter who tell the truck | owner/operator facing 50% higher gas prices that | technically there's no recession. | | [0] | https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from- | rags-... | whimsicalism wrote: | 73% of Americans being in the top 20% of income earners | for one year in their lives does not in any way diminish | what I am saying. | | The median dollar of wealth is inherited by the | wealthiest top 5% of families, not earned as income - | which your statistic doesn't even address. | fallingknife wrote: | > 60% of all wealth in the US is inherited | | Source? This fails the sniff test, as the amount of | wealth has grown at such a rapid rate this seems almost | impossible. | whimsicalism wrote: | https://www.washingtonpost.com/us- | policy/2019/02/06/people-l... | smsm42 wrote: | As I suspected, it counts dollars. Moreover, it | attributes any subsequent income for somebody that | received an inheritance as "inherited" (up to certain | exponential boundary). I.e. if you received an | inheritance of $1000, spent it, and in 30 years since you | became a millionaire, then the amount of wealth you have | up to what you could have if you invested $1000 at | certain rate would be still counted as "inherited". I am | very far from being qualified to understand the dense | math in the underlying article (http://www.piketty.pse.en | s.fr/files/AlvaredoGarbintiPiketty2...) but with such | assumption, I imagine we could arrive at 60%. But it | doesn't mean what you think it means. | whimsicalism wrote: | > As I suspected, it counts dollars. | | What do you mean? It counts ownership stakes & stocks as | well. | | > I imagine we could arrive at 60%. But it doesn't mean | what you think it means. | | It means exactly what I think it means - if you get | bequeathed $1 million dollars and get 8% returns from | investing this, it doesn't mean you "self-made" $3.66 | million more 20 years later. | smsm42 wrote: | > There's no such thing as too big to fail in democratic | politics | | Are you sure? Please tell me the top 10 names on the | Epstein client list. I'll wait. | | > most wealthy people are wealthy because of inherited | holdings and 60% of all wealth in the US is inherited. | | I'd like to see your sources. They probably counts by | dollars, which is pointless, since one hyper-rich | individual completely skews the picture - you can have a | million self-made millionaires and one Elon Musk's son - | and claim that the majority of millionaires is created by | being Elon Musk's son. That's an obvious nonsense. It's | like calculating average income of a people in a bar | where Bill Gates just walked in, and making conclusions | that everybody is rich. You need to count people, not raw | dollars. | | Mine say: | | One measure of the percentage of the wealthy who are | self-made is Forbes' own Forbes 400 list. In 1984, less | than half the people on The Forbes 400 list of richest | Americans were self-made. By 2018, in stark contrast, | this same figure had risen to 67%. | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/06/24/a | maz... | | Around 41.4 percent of the wealthiest one percent say | they have inherited some money. | | https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/10/10/the- | wealthie... | | The market research firm analyzed the state of the | world's ultra-wealthy population -- or those with a net | worth of $30 million or more. The report, which is based | on 2018 data, "showed muted growth" in the number of | ultra-wealthy people that year, "rising by 0.8% to | 265,490 individuals," says Wealth-X. Of those folks, | 67.7% were self-made, while 23.7% had a combination of | inherited and self-created wealth. Only 8.5% of global | high-net-worth individuals were categorized as having | completely inherited their wealth. | | https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/majority-of-the-worlds- | riche... | whimsicalism wrote: | Relying on people to honestly self report on being | transferred wealth. | | Counting people is not the important bit because I am | concerned about the distributional equity of _wealth_ not | _wealthy people_. | [deleted] | ObscureScience wrote: | I somehow doubt he represented Amazon inc's interests. | noncoml wrote: | He obviously meant Tesla's | Johnny555 wrote: | yeah,true, typo on my part, I was just reading about | Bezos in another post and about the Amazon rainforest in | an article about the meeting. Too late to edit it now. | PuppyTailWags wrote: | Chinese billionaires still only exist at the mercy of | China. Jack Ma, anyone? | sdenton4 wrote: | The most productive decades in the US correspond with its | highest relative tax rates, between the fifties and the | eighties. Thomas Piketty: | | "if you look at the long-run evolution, we've seen less | concentration of wealth. So the top 10 percent of the | wealth distribution today would have 60 percent in Europe, | 70 percent in the U.S., as compared to 90 percent before | World War I in Europe. This did not destroy the economy. If | anything, this decline in the share of total wealth going | to top 10 percent and the corresponding increase in the | share going to the next 40 percent has contributed to a | much faster economic growth in the 20th century than in | previous centuries. | | "I think partly because it allowed more people to | participate, to the economy. And also partly because it | came also with the rise of education. And this was the true | source of productivity in the long run, rather than the | enormous level of inequality that we had before World War | I. This theoretical discourse that more inequality, more | concentration of wealth is always better for economic | growth was made, of course, throughout history by people | who had large concentration of wealth, certainly in Europe | before World War I. | | "And this is a discourse that, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan | tried to tell Americans, basically tried to tell them, look | we've gone too far with the New Deal, with Roosevelt, in | terms of progressive taxation or wealth redistribution. We | are going to cut top tax rate by two, where they're going | to go down to 28 percent or 30 percent, as compared to the | 80 percent, 90 percent top tax rate under Roosevelt. So the | promise that was made by Reagan during the 1980s was that | cutting top tax rate might lead to more inequality, but | will also lead to so much more innovation, more economic | growth. And the incomes of average Americans are going to | grow much faster than they used to grow. | | "Except that this is not what we've seen at all. So if you | look at the three decades after Reagan, 1990 to 2020, the | growth rate of national income per capita in the U.S. was | only 1.1 -- 1.2 percent as compared to 2 percent, 2.5 | percent in the period of 1950 to 1980, or 1950 to 1990, | which itself was not particularly exceptional. It was the | same -- 1910 to 1950, it was about 2 --2.5 percent. 1870 to | 1910, around 2 percent. So in fact, the post-Reagan period, | 1990-2020 has been particularly bad in terms of growth rate | of national income per capita, which at the end of the day | is the best economic measure we have of the increase in | productivity and this should reflect innovation, et | cetera." | | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/opinion/ezra-klein- | podcas... | throwaway894345 wrote: | Also, billionaires' wealth isn't parked in a vault, right? | It's invested in companies, so it's working in the economy | whereas it would otherwise go to the government. It's not | obvious to me that the government is going to provide more | value for the public in general than industry, but I would | like for that to be the case (an easy solution for | inequality that doesn't shrink our economy overall). | Johnny555 wrote: | A wealth tax wouldn't change that. No billionaire is | going to sit around and watch his $1B fortune be whittled | away in 5 years by a 20% tax. Instead he's going to | divest -- he'll put the money into other companies or | charitable foundations. | DamnYuppie wrote: | You statement makes it sound like they aren't currently | doing those things already. Can you point to some data | that shows they aren't donating to charities and aren't | diversified? I can understand if someone like Bezos is | highly invested in the company he founded but overtime he | will be like Gates and hold a small portion of his | portfolio in Amazon and the rest broke up across many | companies and charities. | Johnny555 wrote: | Then I guess a wealth tax is not needed, billionaires are | already giving away all of their money or starting new | companies through direct investments, so they're no | longer billionaires. | throwaway894345 wrote: | If you have a billion dollars and you invest all of it, | you're still a billionaire (unless your investments | tank). No billionaire keeps all of his money in cash. | throwaway894345 wrote: | If a wealth tax isn't going to change anything, then | what's the point? Do we really believe that billionaires | are keeping their money in scrooge-mc-duck-esque vaults | rather than investing it in diversified portfolios, and | that only a wealth tax (rather than the promise of | returns on investment) will force them to invest? | int_19h wrote: | The government could, for example, issue loans at minimal | interest rates to smaller businesses. | throwaway894345 wrote: | I'm pretty sure they've been doing that for years now, | and it has been helping to drive inflation. | shinryuu wrote: | A lot of wealth is parked in shares of companies. I'm not | sure to what extent that is actually productive...? | throwaway894345 wrote: | It's paying the salaries of those employees at those | companies, so in what sense is it "parked"? | SkyPuncher wrote: | For many of us on this site, I suspect that actually | contributes to our salaries. | | Either directly as VC capital or indirectly via public | ownership. If billionaires suddenly couldn't own public | companies, stock prices would drop and we'd likely see | layoffs. | jfk13 wrote: | And maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing. How many of | us are doing things that in a broad sense serve to | benefit humanity, and how many are basically pushing ads | and social-media addiction? | JoeOfTexas wrote: | None, none at all. | namdnay wrote: | What do you mean by "parked" in shares of a company? | Shares of a company is literally owning a part of a | company. You wouldn't say you parked your money if you | bought a business | TuringNYC wrote: | >> A lot of wealth is parked in shares of companies. I'm | not sure to what extent that is actually productive...? | | This is a YC-affiliated/run discussion forum. I think I | speak for many entrepreneurs (former or current) that: | _investing is really, really important._ | | Investments from VCs (and form their wealthy LPs) makes | entrepreneurship something that normal people can do (as | opposed to only something rich people can afford to do.) | RHSeeger wrote: | I'm confused by this statement. If I buy shares from a | company, that company has more money to spend on | growth/bonuses/whatever. If I buy shares from another | person, that person has money to do things with. I don't | see how there is even a thing such as "parked in shares | of a company"; it doesn't park there, it is immediately | available for investing in other things. | | Now, the money could sit in the bank, sure. But even | then, the vast majority of the money "in the bank" is | actually being lent out to other people, who spend it. | | So unless the money is literally sitting in a vault, it's | not "parked" anywhere. | | I'm very open to being corrected here, so feel free to do | so. My understanding of economics is decidedly limited. | SoftTalker wrote: | Yes, so many people seem to think that billionaires are | some living version of Scrooge McDuck, and their wealth | is vaults full of gold coins under their houses, and they | swim around in the coins before breakfast every morning. | saurik wrote: | Even then: if you take money and squirrel it away long | enough in a vault then the market is essentially going to | price in whether it thinks you are likely to spend it in | the near future and effectively deflate the currency a | bit to give everyone more buying power... like, imagine | if you instead took money and literally burned it in a | fire, and then try to figure out the statistical | difference on supply and demand over the next five to ten | years between money burned in a fire and money whose | primary purpose is as a trophy swimming pool for an aging | duck. | krrrh wrote: | Billionaires provide value as alternate sources of power to | the state. Distributed sources of philanthropy that can | target areas neglected by government are one thing | (Carnegie's libraries, Bill Gates work on tropical | diseases, Frick's art collection which he donated to the | American people, alternate media and educational projects | (Ford foundation's continued funding of NPR, Soros' Open | Society Foundation, Koch funding of the Reason foundation | and CATO etc, putting hyperbolic conspiracy theories aside | these all enrich the political conversation and increase | the opportunities for policy experimentation)). Secondly, | billionaires have a good claim on being experienced and | skilled deployers of capital. A wealth tax would have | limited the capacity for private investment in EV, space | flight, the acceleration of cloud computing. | | There are two common ripostes to this. One is that these | are wasteful vanity projects, which just proves the point | that there is value to this sort of decentralized system of | capital allocation where some small percentage of total | available capital is in the hands of quixotic individuals | who can pursue aims that a majority of the population | doesn't (yet) see the value of. The second objection is | that these things should all be handled by the state. It's | fine for people to want space exploration to be entirely | handled by NASA for instance, but the record is pretty | clear that US (and by extension humanity's) pace of space | exploration has been absolutely transformed by the ability | for private actors with substantial resources to make moves | outside of an existing bureaucracy. | | The US government spends upwards of $4T dollars a year, and | the media class has a much larger influence on politics | than and group of billionaires could buy. Because most | billionaires are entrepreneurs they also typically look at | ways they can deploy capital that are underserved and where | the state would be an inappropriate actor in terms of | required risk and innovation. A group of talented weirdos | that have the resources to move the needle on neglected | projects is a feature not a bug. | namaria wrote: | >Billionaires provide value as alternate sources of power | to the state. | | You haven't yet figured out that all institutions and | corporations are merely instruments of the monied | classes? | yellowapple wrote: | > Billionaires provide value as alternate sources of | power to the state. | | Billionaires _are_ the state. They would not exist if the | state didn 't specifically provide them with the | mechanisms to amass such wealth at the expense of the | rest of us. | Johnny555 wrote: | A wealth tax wouldn't prevent the Gates Foundation from | existing, it would encourage it -- instead of keeping | personal wealth that's going to be taxed, the would-be | billionaire can set up a charitable foundation like the | Gates Foundation to spend the money. | | Since the charity is run by a board and bound to abide by | its charter, it's not the same thing as the person | controlling the wealth himself. The Gates Foundation is | not going to buy Bill Gates a private island with a $100M | super yacht to get there. | anotherfounder wrote: | If there was fair taxation on billionaires, and there was a | wage growth where all the productivity gains didn't only | stay at the top, then I think folks would be less incensed | at billionaires. | emptysongglass wrote: | You don't even need to discuss billionaires though to get | some very bad effects. Take Denmark for example that | taxes software engineers 50 percent of their salary (it's | not unique to SWEs it's just because nearly all SWEs will | make enough to fall into this bracket). I'm thoroughly | examining other lower tax bracket countries to move to | because why do I want to pay half of my salary until I am | enfeebled and the state lets me enjoy my enfeeblement? | | Let's macrosize the perspective: why do you think Unity | moved HQ from DK to the USA? Could it be the crushing | taxes here? | | This is the issue. You really can't have it both ways. | Yet many Americans love to fetishize a hatred for few | very specific individuals without thinking through the | whole causal chain that girds their economy. | Johnny555 wrote: | _Take Denmark for example that taxes software engineers | 50 percent of their salary (it 's not unique to SWEs it's | just because nearly all SWEs will make enough to fall | into this bracket). I'm thoroughly examining other lower | tax bracket countries to move to because why do I want to | pay half of my salary until I am enfeebled and the state | lets me enjoy my enfeeblement?_ | | Denmark consistently ranks in the top 5 of countries with | the best quality of life. A year of parental leave, great | social welfare, universal healthcare and retirement | benefits, etc. | | Including federal/state/local taxes, healthcare premiums, | retirement contributions, disability insurance, etc, I | pay close to 50% of my salary in the USA | | And I'd still worry about how I'll pay the bills if I | lost my job. | | _why do I want to pay half of my salary until I am | enfeebled and the state lets me enjoy my enfeeblement?_ | | Because that's how the state pays for the enfeebled | today? Are you really suggesting you want to leave | Denmark to go somewhere with lower tax rates, then when | you need social healthcare, you'll move back to Denmark | and take advantage of the healthcare system that you | didn't pay for? | simonsarris wrote: | Why shouldn't they exist, exactly? I think we should want | more billionaires, ten times as many, at least! | aerosmile wrote: | > Will a CEO work less hard if he (and his peers) can only | ever gain $100M in net worth before a wealth tax on assets | kicks in? | | I empathize with the quick back-of-the-napkin math ("if we | could just take Bezos' money and give it to the poor..."). | But I think there's an important nuance here. | | You're making it sound like the only group of people that | would be affected by this are the folks with $0 in net worth, | so that the upside is $100m. In reality, anyone who's ever | earned the first $100m (not inherited or won in a lottery), | only ended up accelerating their ambition and likelihood of | doing a lot more. Case in point - all of the Paypal mafia - | they are all working their asses off every single day, and | none of them would have had the upside that you're talking | about. | | In short, your proposal would basically mean that you're | going to force into retirement anyone who demonstrates to be | a 1000x doer. In the worst case scenario, the opportunities | those people would have created would be lost for a long | amount of time (eg: creating a domestic automaker that turns | the ICE industry upside down). At best, you would be | expecting from unproven people who have not yet validated | their abilities to execute on those opportunities with the | same level of success as the 1000x doers. | | So it seems to me that the question is not so much "what | could we do with Bezos' money," but more "how much of Bezos' | money are we comfortable with not being generated at all to | ensure that he never has more than $100m." | devoutsalsa wrote: | Wealth taxes are an administrative nightmare. It's very | difficult to reasonably price private assets in an illiquid | market. Figuring out how much to charge and collecting it can | cost more than you bring in. Patrick Boyle touches on this | in... | | "Tax The Rich?" -- https://youtu.be/pgW4LWeUyVY | | My personal opinion is taxing the rich is good. Wealth tax | specifically is problematic. | systemvoltage wrote: | We need more billionaires to exist. They _create_ wealth | through enterprise. | | It is astounding how many people naively just think "Too much | money = bad". Billionaires don't really have cash sitting in | their houses. They created companies, often from scratch, | that wouldn't otherwise exist. | | https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth | | GDP per capita grew _because_ the wealth was created, not | stolen. The entire pie got larger. We lifted people out of | poverty from 90% in 19th century to what it is today 10% | through capitalism and trade. | | We need more billionaires to create wealth and propel society | forward. | | Crony billionaires, politicians, inheritance wealth, etc. | need to be condemned and we usually throw the baby with the | bath water along with the whole tub. | | Billionaire hate is getting out of control because people are | convinced naively. I suspect some malaise in economics | education. | Apocryphon wrote: | Has there ever been a study on how many "productive" | billionaires there are, as compared to those who are simply | rent-seekers? | | Or a study that has shown that billionaires ("job | creators") are those who are the primary driving force for | wealth creation? | | Or are the much-bandied Gates/Musk entrepreneur- | industrialist types just a minority of billionaires, many | of whom are just wealthy heirs or hedge fund owners or | whatever | bezier-curve wrote: | You don't need an economics education to understand the | implication of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a | few people. This idea that billionaires generate wealth is | myth. | [deleted] | kortilla wrote: | These billionaires don't have a billion dollars in cash. They | have a huge chunk of a company shares that are currently | valued at >1 billion. | | So what you're proposing is just that a company's shares are | taken away from the founders/execs as the company grows. It's | not just that you're taking wealth away from them, but you're | fundamentally forcing them to sell off control of the | company. | Johnny555 wrote: | Well, I'm not proposing that people and companies do | anything specific, it's up to them how to handle it. Maybe | they'll choose to use less stock based compensation and | more cash, maybe CEO's will end up with less compensation | in general and the companies will retain more of that money | for their own operations. | | _but you're fundamentally forcing them to sell off control | of the company_ | | That part is true. Billionaires can retain control of their | company by being good leaders and providing value to the | company, not because they started it 20 years ago and | retained a huge amount of stock. | cavisne wrote: | To pay the wealth tax you would need to reduce your ownership | in the company to pay the tax until eventually you are just | another minor shareholder with a leadership position (for now | at least). And eventually is not long (under Warren's | proposal it would be ~5 years before jeff bezos was no longer | a controlling shareholder). | | So the question really becomes, will the outcomes for the | company be as good when no one leading it owns it or benefits | directly from its success. | | Sounds familiar! | toomanyrichies wrote: | Is wealth tax paid on unrealized gains? If not, these | billionaires would only pay the wealth tax when they | liquidate their position in the company they founded. Until | then, it's just paper wealth and not taxed. | cavisne wrote: | Proposed wealth taxes have been on unrealized gains. | | Without doing that it's pointless, billionaires even | today never realize gains and just rotate through loans | backed by their shares. | jxi wrote: | toephu2 wrote: | > there should be a heavy wealth tax that makes it hard to | become a billionaire | | Why does everyone want to tax the billionaires? What are you | going to get out of it? Do you think taxing the billionaires | is actually going to help the poor people? | | If so, riddle me this: Name one efficiently-run government | organization. | weakfish wrote: | The postal service is a marvel of efficiency | toephu2 wrote: | Right.. which is why it is running at a net loss? | | "USPS's operating revenue was $77 billion for the 2021 | budget year, an increase of $3.9 billion, or 5.3%. It | reported a 2020 net loss of $9.2 billion." | | https://www.reuters.com/business/us-postal-service- | reports-4.... | Johnny555 wrote: | It's a _service_. The US Highway system runs at a loss | too if you treat it as a business. | | I can send a letter anywhere in t he country for 58 | cents, UPS or Fedex would charge $10? | valenaut wrote: | Of course it runs at a loss. It's a public service funded | by taxes. | | The military also "runs at a loss"--should we expect it | to be profitable? | vaidhy wrote: | There are 2 different metrics and I think you effectively | shift from one to other as it suits you.. | | Metric 1: They provide an efficient service. Posts reach | on time (rain or shine), they have systems and process | that make the organization not waste effort. | | Metric 2: They earn more money that what is spent by | them. | | By metric 1, postal service, railways and public | transport in most places, a large part of governmental | services (DMV), medicare in US are efficient. Depending | on your neighborhood, even police, fire and ambulance are | efficient. | | by metric 2, most government services will not be | efficient.. however, the government is not a business and | I would argue that because people confuse 2 with 1 is why | US does not have a better quality of life. The job of | government is service using tax dollars. | | Take public transport for example. In my mind, it should | be mostly subsidized and effectively free. Trying to make | it a profit center makes it a "non-public" transport and | you end up with limited services which has secondary | effect of reducing mobility and restraining the economy. | pineaux wrote: | Well, its easy then: dont give it to government | organisations, just give the money to other people directly | in the form of a basic income. Set up a commercial bank | owned by all the people of the US of A (you get one share | when born and the share is non-fungible/non-tradeable) then | let this bank fund small and medium bussinesses only. They | are responsible for the majority of the work anyway. Tax | land as well. Profits go to the shareholders and a well | pages CEO, who also pays a hefty income tax. Rinse repeat. | Set the maximum to a set multiple of the minimum. So you | could become a billionaire theoretically, you Just have to | make all Americans millionairs first. | Petersipoi wrote: | I actually like the idea. Unfortunately it will never | happen, because ultimately the government decides what | happens, and this plan doesn't help the government. Maybe | make the current president the CEO of this bank or | something and it could get some momentum. But then we | have whatever idiot got elected most recently using the | bank as a political weapon. | [deleted] | CardenB wrote: | Maybe it is less about the tax revenue and more about | preventing power imbalance. Why is it good to have so much | power concentrated in the hands of one person? | evandale wrote: | I firmly believe Musk, Gates, and Buffet to name a few do | more good with their money than if any government got | their hands on it. Not all the billionaires are bad. | cute_boi wrote: | Looks like you need to look Shenanigans done by Musk, | Gates etc. I don't know that much about Warren Buffet, | but the main point is when you are billionaries you can | earn kindness etc.. They hire PR agency so that gullible | people like them. | | They are really not better than government because these | people are the one who lobbies government to vest their | selfish desires. | phaistra wrote: | > Looks like you need to look Shenanigans done by Musk, | Gates etc | | You should check out the shenanigans that the US | government gets away with. Whatever bad things Musk, | Gates and crew is small fry compared to the government. | dlp211 wrote: | Taxes != spending so this is the wrong frame to view | taxes through. | Johnny555 wrote: | _I firmly believe Musk, Gates, and Buffet to name a few | do more good with their money than if any government got | their hands on it. Not all the billionaires are bad._ | | A side effect of a wealth tax is that instead of wealthy | people building wealth that's just going to be taxed | away, it would incentivize funding charitable foundations | like the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates has done a lot of | good with his foundation, but that doesn't meant that one | person should control that much money. | jfoutz wrote: | Medicare? | FabHK wrote: | Funnily enough, virtually all health insurance systems | world wide have a higher government component than the US | one, and better outcomes at a lower cost. | | (Spot the outlier on the first graph: | https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life- | expectancy-... ) | marcosdumay wrote: | > Why does everyone want to tax the billionaires? | | Because they take a lot of value out of a shared society | and concentrate too much power on their hands. | | > What are you going to get out of it? | | Reduce the power discrepancies, mostly, and money too. | | > Do you think taxing the billionaires is actually going to | help the poor people? | | Yep. | | You are asking about government efficiency, but one of the | reasons for the lack of efficiency is that billionaires do | not want it. | idoh wrote: | To what extent do you think that billionaires earn the | wealth that they have? | marcosdumay wrote: | That seems to vary a lot, so it's not viable to make | policy based on it. | passivate wrote: | That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed | without evidence. | toephu2 wrote: | The government is going to take all that new tax money | from the billionaires and do what with it? Do you believe | the government can efficiently manage the tax revenue to | help the poor?. SF gov spends $60k/year per tent for the | homeless [1] ..that's called a mismanagement of tax | revenue (and probably massive corruption). | | [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/S-F- | officials-w... | Apocryphon wrote: | the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | kiba wrote: | Having a billion dollars is a side effect of our current | system. Much more useful to focus on system level incentive | than to focus on a small minority at the top. | | If there's people with budgets for yacht, then there are a | much larger group of people with budgets for fancy houses. | | And an even larger group of people whose incentive is to see | the price of their homes rise, contrary to the societal goal | or providing affordable homes for everyone. | | If you implement a nationwide land value tax, I believe the | wealth disparity will start to disappears and there may be | less billionaires, but everyone will benefit. | CardenB wrote: | > Much more useful to focus on system level incentive than | to focus on a small minority at the top. | | The issue is that the minority at the top can easily hinder | development of system level incentive to cement their | power, once they have achieved such a power imbalance. | Aarostotle wrote: | That's up to the CEO. | | Recognize that you -- and everyone else -- are relying on him | to work just as hard, to take on just as much responsibility, | while sacrificing more and more for every incremental dollar | of value _he creates_. | | Your question implies a hope that the CEO will continue to | take on massive responsibility and produce massive wealth, | even when the main beneficiary of his productiveness will be | the government, not him. | | If he doesn't choose to work harder, every incremental dollar | disappears and the scheme fails. What happens then? | runarberg wrote: | This assumes that CEOs of massive heavily profitable | company provide meaningful and productive contribution to | the company, which is very much up for debate. | snotrockets wrote: | That's the beauty of it: the public benefit would remain | the same. | jonathankoren wrote: | Lol. CEOs aren't some sort of demigods. In fact, most of | them are just dumb shlubs that got lucky. | Latty wrote: | There should be an exponential wealth tax past a certain | point. It's absurd anyone thinks it is sane to let people | amass infinite wealth, eventually it just obviously | fundamentally breaks democracy. | snarkypixel wrote: | There needs to be an asymmetrical rewards from taking a huge | risk starting a startup. Otherwise people wouldn't do it and | just work at big_company. | chickenpotpie wrote: | There's a middle ground that works better here. It's not | like he wouldn't have started the company if his house was | only $109million. | stevenjgarner wrote: | A wealth tax implies a tax on unrealized appreciated assets, | which is beyond bizarre IMHO. So you buy a house for $500k | somewhere. It surges in value to $1.2 million. You therefore | have an unrealized capital gain of $700k. You are NEVER going | to get that money until you sell it, and when you do you are | going to pay a whopping amount of capital gain tax. But a | wealth tax implies you pay that capital gain tax now. Okay so | let's say you do. Then a year later there is a major | correction to the real estate market (hmmm ... 2008). Your | $1.2 million property (on which you paid a huge amount of | wealth tax) is now worth say $700k. Do you get a tax refund? | You never got the income. You should never pay the tax. No | different if it is a $500k property or a $1 trillion company. | It is not wealth until you have it. | bradly wrote: | The capital gains tax may never get paid. You can 1031 | exchange the property over and over again and then the | gains are zeroed out when passed down generationally. | theptip wrote: | > You are NEVER going to get that money until you sell it | | If you need to unlock the equity you can get a HELOC. More | generally, if you own an asset with a well-known pricing | model you can use it as collateral for a loan. | | To your second point I believe you do carry over tax losses | for some time. | idiotsecant wrote: | Yes, I see your point. 'Wealth' is what rich people have, | in which case taxes on it's value don't make sense! That's | ludicrous! 'Property', on the other hand, is what normal | people have. The value of property _must_ be taxed, for the | good of us all! Anything else would be silly. | Johnny555 wrote: | Oh, you mean like the property tax I pay on my unrealized | house value? | | I don't get that tax back if I end up selling my house for | half what it was taxed for last year. But I can appeal the | evaluation for this year. | stevenjgarner wrote: | Depending on the jurisdiction, property taxes are usually | a function of the property valuation. So at least if the | property value goes down, theoretically so do your annual | property taxes. The problem with a theoretical wealth | tax, is that when the asset value goes down, too late | you've already paid your wealth tax. | elbigbad wrote: | Your point seems a little orthogonal. If I pay tax on X | value in year 1, value goes up and now I pay X*1.1 in | year 2, then back to X in year 3 because the home value | lowers again, I don't get a refund for the extra 10% paid | in year 2 despite the fact that I never realized any | value in the fact that my home appreciated for a year. | Johnny555 wrote: | Isn't that the same? | | If my house is worth $1M in 2022, I pay tax on that $1M | of value. If it goes down in value to $500K in 2023 (and | is reassessed), I'd pay tax on $500K value in 2023. | | If I own $1B of AMZN in 2022, I'd pay wealth tax on my | $1B holdings in 2022, if the market tanks and AMZN is | worth $50M in 2023, then I'd pay the wealth tax on $50M | in 2023. | | Just as with property taxes, a wealth tax is generally | annual based on current assets. | Aeolun wrote: | It feels weird I'd have to pay anyone just for owning | something. Besides, how would you price private | companies? Are those just going to be free? | kelp wrote: | I'm actually in this situation on my property taxes. | | In San Francisco there is a 2.5 month window to appeal | your property tax assessment. I did that for 2020, and | was successful (the hearing was like a year+ later) and | they gave me a refund. | | I failed to do it for 2021, because I was under the | mistaken assumption that they'd they'd also adjust my | 2021 assessment after my appeal. They didn't. I guess | that's on me? | | I just sold that property for a loss and 15% less than my | tax assessment, and I'm well past the appeal period for | 2021/2022 sales tax year. So I think I'm out of luck. I | just over-paid by 15%. | lovecg wrote: | We don't have to be absolutist about it. Houses are not | nearly as volatile as stock, so evaluating and taxing | them as wealth is pretty feasible. | stevenjgarner wrote: | > Houses are not nearly as volatile as stock | | I know six million American households who lost their | homes to foreclosure in 2008 that might disagree with | that one. | Johnny555 wrote: | I live in a "hot" real estate market, my house has | appreciated nearly 50% in 2 years. It's entirely possible | that it will depreciate 20% or more over the next year. | [deleted] | rurp wrote: | All of the serious wealth tax proposals I've seen have a | rather high floor. A more practical hypothetical would be a | person with 10m other assets worrying being taxed on the | gains from their 5th vacation home. | ipnon wrote: | Billionaires are highly correlated with millionaires, which | don't seem to be beyond the pale for critics of wealth | inequality. Countries with billionaires rank much higher on | quality of life than those without. It hurts to see Bezos and | Musk in yachts but the side effect of their wealth is | companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive | effect on society in terms of products and employment. | jelliclesfarm wrote: | Not to mention little old ladies, 50 year old ex fire | fighters and retired unionized school teachers get full | generous pensions because of stock market value of | companies created by billionaires | pmyteh wrote: | Very little stock market wealth is held by pension funds | on behalf of workers, as opposed to the already wealthy. | See https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Pension-scheme- | holding-less-t..., for example. And the value on these | schemes are disproportionately held by those who own | and/or run companies rather than those who work in them: | the Small Self-Administered Scheme is a popular means of | UK tax avoidance for business owners who would like their | capital gains tax free, and assets held in these schemes | (on trust for the owner) will also be included in these | figures. | | Returns on capital flow, unsurprisingly, to those with | capital. And the concentration of capital in fewer and | fewer hands is precisely the issue that people are | objecting to. | Apocryphon wrote: | Yeah, about that: | | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/business/bear-market- | time... | | > But 401(k) plans can still take a significant hit in | market downturns. In 2008, for instance, as the S&P 500 | dropped 37 percent, the average 401(k) account balance | for those who were in their 50s fell 24 percent. | | > People with retirement accounts are keeping more of | their assets in stocks now, as opposed to bonds or a mix | of other investments. "There has been a growing | complacency of people keeping most of their nest eggs in | stocks," said Monique Morrissey, who specializes in | retirement at the left-leaning think tank Economic Policy | Institute. "There has been a fundamental misunderstanding | -- returns do not always average out." | | > "It's not just the loss from January; it's what happens | going forward," she said. "If you were counting on the | amount that you have in your 401(k) to continually grow, | well, then you may never get to what you had planned | for." | | Tying retirement plans to the market only looks good when | there's a continuous bull market, less so when the bottom | falls out. | ineptech wrote: | This isn't about yachts, it's about sensible policy. | Corporations aren't a naturally occurring phenomenon whose | autonomy we must respect; we wrote laws to allow them to | exist because we thought they would be good for society. | They mostly do, but when unfettered capitalism leads to bad | outcomes, it needs to be fettered. | | So it comes down to: is a handful of pseudo-randomly | selected[0] people having wealth on the scale of billions a | good outcome or a bad one? Personally I think it's pretty | obviously the latter, and if you agree then I struggle to | see why a wealth tax isn't the obvious solution. | | 0: "It isn't random, they worked harder than everyone | else!" Where would Microsoft be if Gates' mom wasn't | friends with IBM's John Opel? Where would Amazon be if | Bezos had been born 5 years earlier, or later? Etc. | spullara wrote: | I'm not as wealthy as them but I have never, ever had this | feeling: "It hurts to see Bezos and Musk in yachts" Why | does that hurt anyone? Doesn't it just help the people that | make yachts and work on them? | nickstinemates wrote: | Some people are different than others. Some more so. | yellowapple wrote: | > Why does that hurt anyone? | | Because those yachts were bought with money skimmed off | our labor. | IMTDb wrote: | Ah yes the famed 0 sum game. | | If that was the case, it should work both ways: when | Bezos "lost" $20 billions of May 1st, how many skimmed | labourers suddenly were able to afford $1 million houses | ? | int_19h wrote: | The notion that employers are unfairly collecting | economic rent from their employees doesn't require it to | be a zero-sum game. | yellowapple wrote: | > If that was the case, it should work both ways | | Why would it? The notion that "it should work both ways" | assumes that "both ways" are equally viable. | mrcheesebreeze wrote: | furthermore if many westerners woke up they would realize | that many people envy them like we envy billionaires. | | The average joe in america and many other places has more | money in a month than many have a year, the average | american or european has access to luxuries other people | dream off. | | We are rich by proxy of simply living in the states or in | europe. Furthermore we also have more opportunities and the | ability to become a millionaire too. | | We are envied by many places worldwide, we need to stop | being angry at what others have and be better. | | I hate the anti-rich people talk because we could do far | more productive things. | | besides, to many people we are included in that rich | category we talk own about. | rnxrx wrote: | Do countries with more billionaires inherently rank higher | in terms of quality of life, or do billionaires tend to | live in places that already have higher quality of life | (...particularly for the wealthy)? | runarberg wrote: | Or do the rich exploit workers in poorer countries, | backing their wealth of the decreased quality of life in | poorer countries? | anony23 wrote: | Or are the two things the same? | robby_w_g wrote: | > It hurts to see Bezos and Musk in yachts but the side | effect of their wealth is companies like Amazon and Tesla | that have a net positive effect on society in terms of | products and employment. | | Corporations have a net positive effect on society, so we | should sit by and watch the dragons add to their hoard? | They don't need a billion dollars, it's just a video game | to these people. They want to increase their high scores so | they can be top of the leaderboard. | | Also, millionaires include people who saved a million | dollars over their lifespan in order to retire. Retirees | need that money if they want to live a modest lifestyle, | pay for unexpected (or really expected at that age) health | care costs, and support their grandchildren. It's a luxury | we'd all be lucky to have and tragically many people | weren't able to achieve. Add in an order of magnitude and | what more do you get? What value does a person add to the | world when they have a billion dollars instead of a | million? | runarberg wrote: | It is worth noting that measures of quality of life are | often conflated with wealth, even to a degree that they | quite often use straight up economic metrics (like GDP) in | their models. | | On top of that our global capitalist situation heavily | favor exploitation in cheaper labor markets. So if you are | a millionaire CEO in a rich country you are very likely to | exploit your workers in poorer countries (or more likely, | the workers of your providers and contractors) which | overall increases the QOL in your country while decreasing | it in your worker's country. Your correlation might be a | cross causation. | john_yaya wrote: | "companies like Amazon and Tesla that have a net positive | effect on society" | | Citation needed. | ipnon wrote: | My claim is that if these companies weren't useful than | they wouldn't exist. People hate Bezos but they spend | their money at Amazon. Methinks they doth protest too | much! | cute_boi wrote: | People spend money on Amazon because it is convenient? | However, I don't consider it to be net positive in | current society. In many countries like India, many mom & | pop stores are closed due to Amazon. They are destroyed | thousands of business. Amazon is funneling money into its | company which would have been distributed to multiple | people. Seeing this drastic implications even CCP tried | to clamp services like Amazon, Alibaba in China so they | won't be too powerful. | | So, I think you need to prove how Amazon is net positive | in society? | hetspookjee wrote: | You could argue the same for the likes of Philip Morris | or the Sackler families business. Just that people are | very willing to buy a product doesn't imply that it's | good. So I wouldn't raise the fact that folks buying | Amazon or Tesla products as a pointer that their products | are any good perse. | ipnon wrote: | I think so. Cigarettes are enjoyable and Oxycodone is on | the World Health Organization's Essential Medicine | list.[1] You can also drive your Tesla off a cliff, or | attack someone with a knife you bought from Amazon. The | possibility of risky behavior doesn't necessarily make a | thing useless. | | In the interest of full disclosure I enjoy the occasional | cigar. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxycodone | Apocryphon wrote: | Amazon is immensely useful, but perhaps they are no | longer a net positive to society. The goods and services | they provide are certainly useful. But their status as a | monopoly prevents a flourishing, competitive market that | could address their failings. Amazon as a product is | arguably poorer in quality than it used to be: just look | at the state of their spammed-out reviews, scam products | sold on their platform, etc. Their logistics offerings | (built on poor working conditions) and AWS have certainly | improved compared to the past. But other aspects have | fallen short. | | Maybe we shouldn't speak of companies as being "net | positive" or "net negative", but rather speak of what | _could_ be improved if there was more competition, more | companies, more market. Less monopolies. | themacguffinman wrote: | So what if their product is arguably poorer in quality | than it used to be, so what if there are spammed-out | reviews or whatever? You're not showing that any of their | competitors are better in the eyes of most consumers, and | they definitely have competitors, very large ones in fact | (eg Walmart, AliExpress, eBay). | | If you think Amazon is unfairly using their monopoly to | keep others out and capture the market, state your claim. | If you think competitors _could_ do better, prove it with | consumer choice. | | Walmart or Shopify or eBay or wherever you want to shop | are just a click away. If consumers think they can do | better, then they will. I have already ditched Amazon for | all those reasons. But you cannot speak for others. | Apocryphon wrote: | Consumer choice is binary, but it's not always tied to | quality. There are factors like information asymmetry. | Superior competitors may not be able to get a word in | edgewise when the dominant player is able to blanket the | airwaves with its brand. A disproportionately dominant | position becomes a kind of monopoly of its own when its | reach and resources are so much greater than the next set | of competitors. | | The competitors you list also aren't head-on in | competition with Amazon. Aliexpress predominantly serves | non-American markets. eBay, like it, is an auction site. | Shopify does not have one central market, it's completely | decentralized. Walmart is the most similar to Amazon, and | perhaps with its acquisition of Jet.com and its growing | investments in ecommerce, it may yet prove to be a | lasting competitor. Stay tuned. | themacguffinman wrote: | No it's not always tied to quality, it's just tied to | what they want. If consumers don't prioritize quality, | that's their rightful choice in the market, it's no one | else's place to tell them what they should prioritize. | | Greater reach and resources is part & parcel of being the | top consumer choice. If they blanket the airwaves, if | there is some asymmetry, still who cares? You're going to | have to show how consumers do not have a choice or how it | _doesn 't_ help consumers. | | Because regardless of how intense Amazon's marketing and | reach get, their competitors are still one click away. | Finding out about competitors is one search query away, | one media article away, or one advertisement away. | Frankly, if a consumer is unable to expend the minimal | effort to find & choose an Amazon competitor to buy a | product, they're basically not trying at all. And not | trying is their choice. | Apocryphon wrote: | Consumers don't have a choice if there is information | asymmetry and they are unaware of better offerings. And | as I have illustrated, there is no single "Amazon | competitor" as they are all online retailers in different | spaces. Even Walmart's e-commerce initiatives are | relatively new. A cursory search of competitors yields | this list (https://www.shopify.com/blog/amazon- | competitors) which has eBay (auction house, not in same | class), Walmart (relatively new entrant to online space), | Flipkart (India), Target (brick-and-mortar, smaller | footprint than Walmart), Alibaba (China and APAC), Otto | (Europe), JD (China), Netflix (only a competitor in | streaming), and Rakuten (Japan and APAC). | | As far as anti-competitive behavior, I will defer to | luminaries more informed than I | | https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust- | parado... | | https://www.natlawreview.com/article/amazon-wins-ruling- | resu... | ryan93 wrote: | everyone is award apple brand cables are good quality | compared to 4 dollar cables on amazon | passivate wrote: | There were a lot many years from the time of Amazon's | inception till they became a monopoly. It seems like your | "what could be" experiment has already been done. There | was plenty of opportunity, but nobody managed to build a | better competitor to them. | | It is a separate argument, but 'more competition' isn't a | magical fix to everything. This sort of gating mechanism | relies on the end user/consumer having good knowledge, | sound judgement, etc. Also what is best for the consumer | isn't best for the society. A wild example - For me, as | the consumer I'm happy to get an iPhone for $200, but | that might mean that Apple pays their employees below US | minimum wage. | passivate wrote: | For me, I am convinced that they create jobs, spend money | in the economy, help provide valuable goods and services | to society, etc. Amazon is famous for not hoarding money | but re-investing their profits. Most 401ks invest in | index funds that are buoyed by the tech stocks. I don't | have ready citations but I believe these to be relatively | uncontroversial statements. This whole talk about "net | positive" and what is "net" is a pointless discussion | that is going nowhere. There is no way to prove anything | unless we have an alternative universe without Amazon to | study. | | What sort of citation will make you happy? | runarberg wrote: | States provide the infrastructure and educate the | workforce which enables the job creations. Jobs would be | created without the rich. See responses sibling post | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the | issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA | countries). | | This is indeed a very controversial statement because the | rich are living a lifestyle which is at best | unsustainable for the planet. They emit more greenhouse | gas into the atmosphere for their own lavish lifestyles. | They exploit poor labor conditions and lobby against | every minor improvement. They don't contribute to our | shared funds like regular people, decreasing the state's | funds for more infrastructure which would have created | more jobs. And they cause stress with their increased | wealth disparity. Many research has shown perceived | inequality is a significant stress producer. We may very | well be bettor off without them. | dgudkov wrote: | History teaches us that people who don't want billionaires to | exist eventually start not wanting millionaires to exist. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Does it? Is there an example of said gradual progression? | tastyfreeze wrote: | Just look at how the 17th Amendment was sold... | | https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in- | action/bria-11-3-b... | adastra22 wrote: | > Ok, I'll admit it, billionaires should not exist at all, | there should be a heavy wealth tax that makes it hard to | become a billionaire. Will a CEO work less hard if he (and | his peers) can only ever gain $100M in net worth before a | wealth tax on assets kicks in? | | In my experience from having known a couple of mega-rich | CEOs, yes. Even those who are not principally driven by the | money or three-commas social signaling, they still want to | leverage their accumulated assets into changing the world in | some way. Take that away from them and they lose motivation, | yes. | azemetre wrote: | What gives these individuals some sort of divine right over | citizens in a democracy? I feel like people are ignoring | that human history already went through this period in the | era of monarchies and divine rule. | | It was a disaster then, it's a disaster now, and it'll be a | disaster in the future. | CardenB wrote: | There's a gulf between sam altman and jeff bezos. We can | still have rich people with the leverage to act efficiently | without giving them the ability to buy entire nations if | needed. | corrral wrote: | Cool. They can retire and one of the thousands of other | people who can (and want to) do their job can step in. If | that starts causing problems, companies need to work on | training programs for their leadership. It'd be an amazing | side-effect if this pushed us toward it being more common | to "rise through the ranks" and end up CEO. And if it | caused us to start generating tens of people with a $100m | net worth for every one one billionaire we'd have had | otherwise. | asiachick wrote: | why? So instead we have government officials with more money | to hand to random cronies and massively wasted via graft? | | What I like about billionaires is they cut through the red | tape and often through the inefficiencies. I actually like | they don't need consensus to decide what to use their money | for. I don't agree that taxing that money away from them is a | net positive for society. | fairity wrote: | > Will a CEO work less hard if he (and his peers) can only | ever gain $100M in net worth before a wealth tax on assets | kicks in? | | Yes. You would increasingly see founders depart their | companies as soon as a heavy wealth tax kicks in. It's | difficult to prove that this would have large net negative | impact on overall well-being, but I imagine it would. | rglullis wrote: | Why stop at 100M? Why not 50M? Why not 10M? Why not 250k? | | Trying to control the amount of wealth one "should" have is | misguided. We should have ways to limit the amount of _power_ | that can be concentrated. If we did that, we would have a | better shot at having a more equitable society: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641 | pkulak wrote: | Just because you can't immediately pinpoint where a line | should be, doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist at all. | rglullis wrote: | True, but my argument is that this is the _wrong_ metric | to be regulated. | | I don't care that there are people richer than me, I care | that there are people with too much power on their hands. | pkulak wrote: | I'm okay with a poor, powerful person. That means they | have their power through some means other than wealth | accumulation; popular election or something. People who | are powerful because of money usually didn't even get the | money themselves. It's the new hereditary monarchy. Get | rid of all the money, and you get rid of the undue power | as well. | Arrath wrote: | In that case we will need to decouple money from power, | somehow. | | Starting by no longer equating giving money to politicians | as an exercise in free speech would be as good a place as | any to start. | rglullis wrote: | There is a much easier way to do it [0], we just need to | be willing to get rid of Corporativism. | | [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641 | Arrath wrote: | "- no business entity can have more than 150 people." | | How is that supposed to work with any labor intensive | process? | | E.g. I work on a construction project where there are | over 220 field craft workers on day shift alone. Office | staff and inspectors are another 100 or so. Night shift | adds yet more. | | Should each of those be its own business entity? | rglullis wrote: | Yes, or your company will have to invest in automation. | Both alternatives are good. | | Third option, we stop working on such large projects, and | focus our collective efforts on making our societies and | our environments more human-scaled. Again, it is an | option that I see as _good_. | Arrath wrote: | At first brush, it seems that any gains in automation | will immediately be offset by duplication of | administrative minutiae in all these new, smaller | business entities. Administration, payroll, regulatory | compliance, safety programs, training programs etc etc | this is the absolute opposite of improved productive | ability, is it not? | | As to the third option, 'human scale' is just cresting 8 | billion individuals. We will never escape the need for | massive infrastructure projects. | rglullis wrote: | > Administration, payroll, regulatory compliance, safety | programs, training programs... | | These can be outsourced, automated and/or reduced in | scope. Each company would be a lot more specialized in | their function, so it wouldn't make sense to keep the | same set of regulations and policies that we use for | larger corporations. | | > We will never escape the need for massive | infrastructure projects. | | Au contraire, I think that we only push for "massive | infrastructure projects" because we are addicted to | growth. Governments push for growth as a way to keep | financing their debts, corporations push for growth as a | way to justify their existence. | | If we were limited in our ability to grow and established | that things needed to be settled organically, cities | would be more dispersed _but still dense_ and suburbia | would not exist. Global trade would be impacted, _but_ we | would be forced to re-learn how to manufacture things | locally. Governments would have to figure out ways to | sustain the populations with tighter constraints, _but_ | we would not get things like the European dependency on | Russian gas, etc. | anonporridge wrote: | This means that if your business grows to a multi billion | dollar valuation, you are reward for your success by | immediately losing controlling share of your business. | | This might mean that motivated found might work less hard to | make their businesses as competitive and big as possible, and | could slow down the pace of innovation. | cwkoss wrote: | The world would be a better place with fewer monolithic | walled gardens. It would encourage CEOs to build $999M | businesses that interoperate with other businesses on the | free market rather than acting like a cartel controlled | within a single organization. | nipponese wrote: | By current COIN marketcap he is barely a billionaire. I | figure by the end of the month and another rate hike, he will | no longer qualify as a billionaire. | repomies69 wrote: | That must be incredibly tragic for him. | passivate wrote: | By that same logic, why should USA salaries be higher than | the rest of the developed world? Will you work less hard if | you can only get $70,000 versus $200,000? The CEO is an | employee. The owners of the company hire him/her to do a job. | dcow wrote: | If it's hard then it's still possible and where do you think | the extra resources will have to come from to realize the new | generation of billionaires? | subdane wrote: | Imagine if billionaires had the same _effective_ tax rate we | do. That would be helpful enough. | tastyfreeze wrote: | I would like all levels of wealth to be treated the same. Why | do we penalize people for being successful? If I knew you | and, by some stroke of luck, you happened to become monocle | and top hat wealthy I would congratulate you on your success. | I would even buy you dinner to celebrate. I would not demand | a share of your wealth just because you have a lot of money. | | There are some systemic issues that cause wealth inequality. | We should focus on fixing those issue to enable more people | to enjoy success. Not trying to take from the most successful | individuals in the grand game of life. | munificent wrote: | _> Why do we penalize people for being successful?_ | | I assume you mean "relative to people that are less | successful". The answer is because the marginal value of | wealth decreases the more you have. | | If you're poor, $1,000 is the difference between your kid | seeing the doctor or not. If you're rich, it's a nice meal | out. | | _> There are some systemic issues that cause wealth | inequality. We should focus on fixing those issue to enable | more people to enjoy success._ | | The core systemic issue is that wealth is a positive | feedback loop. The more you have, the more you can leverage | it without _losing_ it in order to get more. | | Treating all levels of wealth the same is directly | incompatible with resolving this positive feedback loop. | You need a counterbalance that scales with the level of | wealth, because the magnitive of the positive feedback loop | does. | tastyfreeze wrote: | So? Are we not all to be treated equally under the law? | It doesn't matter that higher income earners are able to | pay more in taxes. The government is required to treat | all individuals equally. | | Fix the problems that exacerbate wealth inequality. | | Remove regulations that inhibit competition. | | No business is too big to fail. (Most big banks would | have been destroyed in 2008) | | Stop manipulating the currency to the benefit of the | investor class. | agumonkey wrote: | > The best mindset is that you could be gone tomorrow. | | I find this a bit too cynical.., that said, it's also a good | mental spot to not let your job define you define your job as | much as possible. You try to make everything that you enjoy on | a daily basis(hopefully you still have that possibility). Tasks | that grow your skillset, new things, any reason.. so that if | you're let go.. there's very few days you didn't profit. | subsubzero wrote: | Wow that severance is incredible! They reached out to me awhile | ago but thought their whole platform being tied to crypto was | extremely risky. Engineers need to save for bad times and have | months and months of cash for downtimes as in 3-4 months there | will be alot of people looking for jobs. | | Fun fact in 2009 I interviewed at google and the HM said that | 500 people applied to the job I was interviewed at(onsite) and | there were 3 others that were also brought onto the onsite, so | 4 out of 500 getting a chance to interview, with only one | making it. Lets hope it doesn't get that bad again. | pram wrote: | I mean, that was Google. In 2010 I got a Linux admin job from | a 30 minute call so it's not like employment was an | impossibility. | myth_drannon wrote: | Right, I got an incredible remote startup job in 2009 after | two 30 minutes general phone interviews. It was my longest | unemployment period ever of about 4 months. This time can't | be as bad as 2008. | lumost wrote: | If there is a slight here, I suspect it's the belief that | Coinbase was effectively a pump and dump on behalf of the | founders and some investors - for which the employees were | along for the ride. | | That Armstrong liquidated a large position and moved it into | real estate, plus the lackluster stock performance compared to | what coinbase was _likely_ promising employees leads to this | feeling. For a while, coinbase was competing with the top firms | in the world on Compensation - the employees probably missed | out by joining. | | But that's the breaks, I doubt many employees would have been | happier if the founders and core investors in coinbase were | taking a bath to. | taternuts wrote: | I would love to get laid off with 3.5 months salary, what a | dream | [deleted] | objclxt wrote: | > Coinbase was also extremely generous with severance. 12 weeks | plus two for every one year at the company, I think [...] Three | and a half months of dev salary is pretty incredible. | | ...literally this is the minimum they can get away with in some | jurisdictions. It's illegal in plenty of countries to conduct | mass layoffs without either a consultation period or putting | people on garden leave (i.e, severance). | kamikaz1k wrote: | Can you cite a few example jurisdictions? I am just curious | because I've seen less before, even for companies with | international presence. | georgeburdell wrote: | The WARN act in California is a good example [1]. They must | give 60 days notice, but the way to get around this (it | seems) is to lay off without warning and give 60 days pay. | | [1] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/wrongful- | termination/warn... | dabeeeenster wrote: | In the UK: https://www.gov.uk/staff-redundant/redundancy- | consultations | ausbah wrote: | >I think if employees feel slighted by being fired, they're | fooling themselves. The best mindset is that you could be gone | tomorrow. It gives you clarity and purpose. It also happens to | be the truth. | | sorry but this reads like you drank the whole bowl of US | corporate kool-aid. the insecurity and stress the comes from | not knowing if you'll have a job tomorrow in literal insanity. | 14 weeks severance shouldn't be seen an some benevolent gift | from a god-brain billionaire, it should be the bare minimum if | they still have the right to fire me in a whim | usefulcat wrote: | Sincere question: would you give up your right to quit "on a | whim" if your employer gave up their right to fire you "on a | whim"? | cupofpython wrote: | I would, yes. 30 day terms would work for me as it does for | many business to business agreements. I dont agree with the | other commentators entitlement to 14 weeks of severance pay | in any situation, however | Afforess wrote: | Yes? The power imbalance there is obvious. Employers have | much greater access to wealth, capital, and lobbyists. As | an individual I have no such agency. So yes, trading away | risk in exchange for fixed contracts is a great deal in | most circumstances. Most of modern finance exists to | exchange risk for dollars in some sense. | flatiron wrote: | i don't think that's equivalent. it's tremendously easier | for a company to fill a position than a person get another | position somewhere else. this is a billion+ company. some | developers probably live paycheck to paycheck. | Blahah wrote: | No, because humans and their needs are much more important | than companies and the profits of their owners. | lkrubner wrote: | This is not a hypothetical in Britain. Many categories of | workers cannot be fired on a whim, nor can they quit on a | whim. Many people prefer that trade-off. | | For example, in 2012, at Timeout, Aksel Van der Wal was | promoted to CEO. He had previously been the CTO, and now we | needed a new CTO. We made an offer to a person who had a | great reputation as an engineering manager at another | company. But he was on a contract he could not get out of, | nor would his employer let go of him. So we had to wait 9 | months, while he finished that contract, before he could | join us. | babyshake wrote: | Even if doing huge amounts of hiring during good times and | quickly pivoting to doing large layoffs during bad times is | ethical, it sure does seem wasteful and not indicative of | great leadership. Although it does seem to be the norm now, | if recent years are any indication. | thethimble wrote: | Well it's not clear that anyone could have predicted the | timing of this downturn. Just a few months ago people were | painting a very rosy picture for the future. In that | context, metering investment can have a huge opportunity | cost as well. | | I'm not advocating for CB - just suggesting that it's | harder to predict the future than you are implying. | baq wrote: | Exact timing? No. General direction? There are people who | made that call in November, plenty more joined January- | February. Note the question is where does this end and | those same people are the first to admit nobody knows, | because the fed doesn't know - and the answer is, when | the fed pivots. | synaesthesisx wrote: | We knew that rates going up was inevitable, and that | crypto is essentially a sponge for excess liquidity. We | knew that inflation was inevitable (to an extent) given | the Fed's actions over the last two years. Upon | observation of the current macroeconomic environment, it | appears that either markets did not properly price in | rate hikes, or there is something far worse happening | that will ultimately trigger a valuations reset. | TAForObvReasons wrote: | That's still a very employer-centric view. If the company | reasonably expects a downturn at some point, it should be | preparing with right-sized sustainable hiring. It's not | "metering investment" but rather "building a sustainable | business". Rushing to hire as many people as possible, | then firing during a downturn, creates the impression | that employees are cannon fodder. | [deleted] | sacrosancty wrote: | You still have your career and can get another job somewhere | else. If your whole industry has collapsed so you have no | alternatives, then that's a risk to prepare for in your | general life plans. The world doesn't owe you comfort and | security but you can easily create it for yourself if that's | what you want. Also, obviously don't work at a crypto startup | if you want that either! | | I've done this for myself. I can't be fired, and I have 3 | different "career" directions I'm going in at the same time. | I'm not a high flier in any of them, but at least one is | bound to always be available. That's comfort and security. | moneywoes wrote: | Any suggestions for getting this done? In a similar boat | looking for some safety net. Are you describing overworked? | derefr wrote: | Someone could come along and ruin your life by framing you | for some morally-awful social-presumption-of-guilt crime. Or | a nuclear war could start tomorrow with a strike on your | city. Or a tiny little meteorite could happen to fall | directly on you. Or God could stop+terminate the VM | containing the universe mid-run. | | The insecurity and stress are the human condition, my friend. | That's what it means to be sentient. | gusgus01 wrote: | I think there's quite a statistical difference between | being laid off and the situations you listed. | ldthorne wrote: | That is a false equivalency. | | We (theoretically) have control to improve and enhance | workers' rights, and can make legislative changes to | increase job security, or decouple the ability to live and | subsist with employment. | helmholtz wrote: | What the fuck? So one should actively go out and seek more | of it? To me, BECAUSE things are uncertain, there's even | more value in things that can be made certain. Then, we at | least have the hope of being free to devote our limited, | anxiety-riddled, conflict-avoidant, procrastinating brains | on the parts that matter. I don't want to have to worry | about things like health insurance or the wham-baam-thank- | you-ma'am nature of US Capitalist idiocracy. | myle wrote: | You are arguing that because very negative but also very | unlikely events that we can't control, may happen, we | shouldn't as society try to improve the conditions of our | lives? | ycta2022061413 wrote: | Unfortunate that workers have internalized the idea that they | are disposable tools and not long-term assets. It wasn't that | long ago that large corporations like IBM and GE prided | themselves on how many people they employed, how much salary | they paid and even how much in tax $ they gave to the | gov't[1]. | | 1: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1101505691/short-term- | profits... | antihero wrote: | Get paid for two months to party/holiday/rest, the have | another whole month (paid) to lazily job hunt in a crazy hot | market and walk into the next place with a 10-30k raise. | Happened to me a few times, was fucking awesome. | | Lack of healthcare would have been a worry but I'm in the | U.K. where we get it free. | | How hard is it to fund your own US insurance on a tech salary | to tide you over? | Bluecobra wrote: | > How hard is it to fund your own US insurance on a tech | salary to tide you over? | | Healthcare is NOT cheap if you want to maintain the same | plan. I had to pay $2K a month for a family plan under | COBRA several years ago. This is the same as a mortgage | payment for me. Typically your employer bears the majority | of your insurance cost, but you pay all of it under COBRA. | antihero wrote: | Oh wow that is absolute madness. That covers your costs | for pretty much everything, right? | SahAssar wrote: | The reason to have guaranteed severance for a long-ish time | (3 months or so) is to soften your landing when the | market/economy does not guarantee you a more well-paid job | within that time. We might be entering one of those times, | we might not, either way you should be prepared for it. If | your employer has already made sure that you are prepared | for it then that is less stress for you, which is good for | everyone. It also means more predictable (although maybe | higher) costs for the employer, which is usually good for | them too. | | It seems like tech-workers assume that things will always | be easy on them when history clearly doesn't bear that out. | svachalek wrote: | In the US there is something called COBRA, which allows you | to continue the company plan for a year by paying the full | amount (most companies will pay all/some of it while you | are employed). It really depends on what kind of coverage | and whether it's an individual or a family but it ranges | from several hundred to over $1000 per month. | | The whole system sucks really, but in today's economy I | think most of these people will be just fine just because | so many companies are hiring. | usefulcat wrote: | Depends on your age and dependents, but in the US the cost | of health insurance can easily be in the same price range | as housing. Employees are often not aware of the actual | cost since most or all of the premiums are often paid by | the employer. | baq wrote: | The problem is the market is losing heat by the hour. | There's absolutely no guarantee there's anyone hiring in a | couple months. This year is very unlike the past ones. | Closest analogue would be 2007 into 2008... until it's | 2001. Stay alert, eyes on the ball at all times. | AlexandrB wrote: | I think the parent's statement was descriptive, not | normative. The writing was on the wall when unions became | scarce and "at-will employment" became the norm. | | The fact that things _shouldn 't_ be like this doesn't change | the fact that they _are_ like this. | Sindrome wrote: | You signed an employment-at-will agreement. You have no | rights. | tschellenbach wrote: | It does seem insane to me that healthcare is tied to | employment.. that's just crazy | bojangleslover wrote: | It's not. You can buy (and deduct) it on healthcare.gov. | Ask any self employed person. | | You're also paying it out of your salary with employer. | There's no such thing as "employer match." | nxm wrote: | There's Medicaid for these situations | cupofpython wrote: | my healthcare was actually better when i was unemployed | than it is with my current company | boringg wrote: | This part never makes sense to me. I've had friends stay in | jobs to keep getting healthcare treatment - it's not great. | Apocryphon wrote: | It's a complete relic from the WWII era. | xapata wrote: | It's a relic from the days when Americans only wanted | "upstanding citizens" to get subsidized healthcare. | tzs wrote: | It actually came about due to labor shortages during | WWII. So many people were drafted into the military or | voluntarily joining that employers were having trouble | finding enough workers. | | To prevent this from leading to rampant inflation the US | passed laws that regulated wages and prices, such as the | Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the Stabilization | Act of 1942. | | Insurance and pension benefits were not counted as wages, | and so employers that could no longer legally raise wages | to get people people to come work for them instead | started offering health coverage. | | Americans, who before this had largely been on their own | when it came to healthcare, liked this, and so even after | the wage controls ended unions bargained to keep those | benefits and over the next decade or two expand them to | include vision and dental benefits. | | By the early '60s it was clear that there was a serious | problem inherent in this. Employer sponsored health | insurance had become that basis for nearly the entire | American healthcare system. People who then left that | system such as when they retired often found they could | not afford to buy their own insurance. And so Medicare | and Medicaid were created to try to handle people who | could not get employer provided health insurance. | | We almost got major healthcare reform in the early '70s. | Senator Kennedy proposed a single-payer system that would | be available to every American. President Nixon proposed | a system that pretty close to the ACA (aka Obamacare). | Then Watergate happened and pushed healthcare reform to | the back burner were it sat for around 40 years. | boringg wrote: | What glorious risk-free world do you live in? The low | volatile relatively risk free last decade and a half just | vanished the next 5 - 10 years is going to be a much rougher | ride. | | 14 week severance bare minimum at a private company? That | sounds very rich. | | [edited for better manners] | alphabetam wrote: | c) European. | Broken_Hippo wrote: | I was going to reply the same. Heck, you don't even have | to actually _be_ European if you just read what | protections you have in other places. | daenz wrote: | According to this[0], the absolute most generous package | is the Netherlands, which offers 1/3 of your monthly | salary for each year of employment. To receive 14 weeks | of salary, you'd need to work at a company for 10 years. | Coinbase was founded in 2012. | | Other "European" countries have much worse severance | packages. So what Coinbase offered seems to be better | than even the best country in Europe. | | 0. https://www.claimsattorney.com/2020/05/understanding- | severan... | | EDIT>> Correcting years | meheleventyone wrote: | Don't mistake the legal statutory minimums with normal | practice. | daenz wrote: | Are you suggesting that European countries regularly | offer severances to all employees that exceed what is | legally required? Can you provide a source? | baq wrote: | Yes, anecdotally, no recent evidence, though expect to | gather some in the next year or two. | | The last time my company laid people off it have very | generous severance packages, way above the legally | required 1/3 months depending on duration of employment. | Marsymars wrote: | I don't know about Europe, but in e.g. Canada, employees | are generally entitled to common law severance, which is | significantly more than the statutory minimum severance. | e.g. https://www.monkhouselaw.com/how-much-severance-pay- | should-i... | SahAssar wrote: | Different countries have different laws, but at least in | sweden it is common to be part of an income guarantee | program (a-kassa, usually via a union but can also be | outside of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment | _funds_in_Sweden). You get around 80% of your income for | the first two thirds-ish of a year (200 days) and 70% for | the rest of the year. | | It's obviously good that this is handled outside the | employers control. | | After that you get the normal unemployment benefits from | the state which is capped at a low but livable level. | | It is (in sweden) abnormal (and illegal) for companies to | just fire people without cause, and the valid causes are | pretty restricted. One of the few valid causes are lack- | of-work (arbetsbrist), but even that triggers | negotiations between the employer, the employee and the | union, and is usually a last-in, first-out thing. The | employment contracts are always including a fixed notice | (I think it's 3 months regulated by LAS, can be lower if | your on a trial employment up to 6 months). | | As an example, the klarna downsizing was major news in | sweden a second time because of their obviously illegal | way of handling firings. | | > Other "European" countries have much worse severance | packages. | | Please give me a source. | daenz wrote: | >Please give me a source. | | The source is in my post. They cover France, Luxembourg, | UK, and the Netherlands, and the first three are worse | than the Netherlands. | rocgf wrote: | You are comparing apples and orages. | | Coinbase was generous, it could have chosen to give them | exactly 0 and that would have been legal. | | You're taking the best case scenario in one case and | comparing it to the norm in another country. | daenz wrote: | The person I was replying to was taking the norm in | another country and suggesting it is as-good-as-if-not- | better than what Coinbase offered. | mlyle wrote: | > which offers 1/3 of your monthly salary for each year | of employment. To receive 14 weeks of salary, you'd need | to work at a company for 3.5 years, | | 1/3rd of a month is 1.44 weeks. To get 14 weeks, that | would be 10 years. | | You're right in that Europe generally provides less | severance, but they do tend to sign fixed term, renewing | employment contracts with rather lengthy notice periods | for _either side_ to terminate it. E.g. in Switzerland, | statutory minimum after 1 year of employment is end-of- | calendar-month + 2 months of notice, but typical | agreements extend this. | | Also, there's the whole concept where regulators are | involved with layoffs and negotiate for payments and | assistance in many jurisdictions. | daenz wrote: | Thanks for the correction! | arrrg wrote: | Long notice periods typically soften the blow in Germany. | After the first six months (where both sides can call it | quits with two weeks notice and without cause) the notice | period is four weeks to the 15th or last day of the month | (and firing people without cause is no longer possible). | There are some circumstances when that notice period is | not relevant (if the employee is caught stealing, for | example), but those don't matter here. | | From 2-5 years it's one month (to the last day of the | month), from 5-8 years it's two months, eventually maxing | out at seven months after twenty years. That's the notice | period for the employer. It can and often is asymmetric | but can never be shorter for the employer than for the | employee. | | However, these are the legal minimums. Many employers | will have longer notice periods in their contracts which | apply to both sides. Something like three months or so | isn't uncommon. | | Severance pay can even lead to problems with the | mandatory unemployment insurance (which in most cases | will pay you 60 - without kids - or 67 percent - with | kids - of your last net earnings for a year) that can | reduce the payout from that insurance (and then it | becomes a game of calculating severance vs unemployment | insurance, which can be annoying). | virissimo wrote: | On the other hand, unemployment is consistently higher in | Europe than in the US (and wages are lower), so pick your | poison. | rocgf wrote: | I think it's an easy pick, to be honest. | boringg wrote: | The US. | rocgf wrote: | In Europe you have guaranteed minimum wage, can't be | fired without good reason, healthcare, all sorts of other | help if you lose your job, public transport/cheap means | of getting around. It's not even close for the typical | worker. | raesene9 wrote: | I see they cut off access for staff before telling them. not an | atypical move, but I wonder if they were actually able to revoke | all access, given there's systems like Kubernetes where some | auth. types can't be revoked once granted. | JamesSwift wrote: | I would expect there to be a VPN in place with revokable login | raesene9 wrote: | As long as their cluster API servers aren't on the | Internet.... which is a default for AKS, EKS, and GKE :) | (there's 1.3M servers identified as Kubernetes directly on | the Internet according to Shodan's latest stats). | bombcar wrote: | Which is why even with zero-trust and such, things like a VPN | can be useful as a "catch-all". | BonoboIO wrote: | Being an employee in a high risk field like crypto is a tough | business. | | You are everyday one day away from a massive market crash or | crypto heist to be let go. | | (Yes, conventional companies too, but not to this extent) | repomies69 wrote: | On the other hand they could've been growing much more | modestly, and then there wouldn't be any layoffs. Not much | different to other IPOing companies, many are doing layoffs | now. Crypto has little to do with it. | greggsy wrote: | People were gainfully employed during that period, and are | receiving generous severance by any measure. The alternative | is that those people aren't employed at all, or working in | another job that might be just as risky. Crypto has _a lot_ | to do with it: The industry itself is known for its | volatility, so there's some expectation that they took up the | role with an understanding of the risks to those tenure. | | This isn't a McDonald's or Walmart hiring unskilled labour at | low rates, knowing full well that people are replaceable. | joshmarinacci wrote: | Coinbase had over 5k employees?!!! WTF. What were they all doing? | [deleted] | sytelus wrote: | And they still didn't have ability to provide statements! | beefman wrote: | About 10% as much as employees at FTX, apparently | | https://craft.co/ftx-exchange | asdff wrote: | Their API at least regularly times out for me. Probably half of | them are in the server room with a fire extinguisher at all | times. | fortuna86 wrote: | Gotta spend that seed rd money somehow | habitue wrote: | They're a public company | fortuna86 wrote: | My fault. They had to justify their stock price with a | higher headcount somehow. | Geee wrote: | Probably customer service. They have about 100 million | customers, so 1 employee per 20000 customers. | muttantt wrote: | The last thing Coinbase is doing is customer service... | DoubleDerper wrote: | Coinbase is notoriously poor at customer service, so this | doesn't make sense. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27653022 | oh_sigh wrote: | 1 employee per 2000 customers seems like it makes perfect | sense as to why customer service would be bad. | nickjj wrote: | It doesn't need to be. | | For example I do personal customer support for ~40,000 | folks who take one of my video courses (programming and | tech related). | | I often write personalized multi-sentence responses to | their issues and follow up to reply back to them as many | times as needed to get it fixed within minutes or hours | of a request coming in. | | I think the big difference there is it's my business. The | best possible customer experience outcome is the only | option in my mind, if it would even hint at being | anything less then I wouldn't have this business anymore. | arrosenberg wrote: | The big difference is that you aren't involved with | peoples' finances. There is a whole other level beyond | the crazy you attract in services and retail. | nickjj wrote: | That's true, but upset developers are up on the list of | "how can I word this to be the most passive / aggressive | as humanly possible". | | To be fair I think customer support in general is a | hostile environment for the receiver. Everyone coming at | you is usually dealing with an unexpected issue in some | way that's preventing them from being able to do what | they wanted to do. There's been a huge range of things | I've seen. Everything from super nice folks including | huge amounts of details and are calm to nothing more than | "it's not working" and in 1 case a death threat because | Docker wouldn't run on his Windows box. I don't think it | was a serious threat (I'm still alive), but he wasn't | trying to be funny. He was really upset. | | I don't let those things phase me. I help everyone | equally regardless of how they treat me. From doing this | for 5+ years I've learned that people act way differently | initially when unexpected things happen but more often | than not they calm down and apologize afterwards. | dubcanada wrote: | Why? Presumably your product works, so at best you'd only | have like 1% (20) customers with issues on any given day. | 1 customer service agent should be able to attend to 20 | issues in a 7-8 hour shift. | ghshephard wrote: | Of course, when that customer service agent has to deal | with 1% of 20_000 - 200 issues/day/agent - things start | to add up. | [deleted] | ghshephard wrote: | Particularly as it's actually 1 employee per 20_000 | customers. | kube-system wrote: | Having a lot of employees does not necessarily make | customer service good. Telecoms and large retail banks top | the list for the largest number of customer service | employees, but often are notorious for bad service. | jquery wrote: | Prediction: Coinbase will do a reverse Robinhood and start | offering traditional brokerage products as crypto is further | exposed as a scam. | [deleted] | namanaggarwal wrote: | Genuine question: At what point do we actually declare that we | are in recession. Do we wait for GDP figures out these signs are | enough to assume we are in bear markets now. | davesque wrote: | It's a legitimate question, although I wouldn't use stories | about Coinbase as any indication about the answer. | wollsmoth wrote: | I think the actual rule is 2 quarters of GDP decline in a row. | We had one, seems like we'll have another. | Geee wrote: | This is pretty good: | https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=recessio... | antoniuschan99 wrote: | Politically it could be after midterms was an idea floating | around | fortuna86 wrote: | Crypto was always a plaything for people that had extra money | and no idea what to do with it. That extra money dries up, | guess what happens to crypto. | jeffbee wrote: | Real GDP has to shrink for it to be a recession. GDP in the | United States is currently growing strongly. The Conference | Board is not predicting a recession in the U.S. in 2022, and | they just updated their forecasts a few days ago. | mehrdada wrote: | > GDP in the United States is currently growing strongly | | Last quarter was -1.4% growth, so probably not growing | strongly (but who knows, maybe just a blip...) | | https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-economy-gdp- | growth-q1-116511... | jeffbee wrote: | And Q2 is anticipated to be +2.1%, based on late-Q2 | analyses. One quarter of stochastic sign change does not | get you a recession. | | A more pessimistic view gives +1% for Q2: https://www.atlan | tafed.org/-/media/documents/cqer/researchcq... | justinzollars wrote: | Atlanta FED GDPNow recently downgraded expectations: | https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow | | This is typically an accurate measure. | jeffbee wrote: | Sure. And if GDP goes negative, and if employment falls | etc etc then people will start saying recession. I was | just trying to answer the GPs question, not predict | whether or not this is a recession! | | By the way the official declaration by the U.S. | bureaucracies of the onset of a recession typically lags | the actual onset by a year or so. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | When growth actually slows. The stock market has little to do | with whether we are in a recession. If it fell by 10K points | tomorrow, most stocks would still be wildly overvalued. | bad_alloc wrote: | Some crypto collapsing does not mean it is a recession. The | exploding prices for real goods and less and less people being | able to afford basic things are the indicator for that. | Johnny555 wrote: | Recession is a loosely defined economic term where the exact | definition depends on who's reporting it, traditionally, it's | meant 2 quarters of decline in GDP growth. But now: | | _The NBER defines a recession as a significant decline in | economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than | a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, | employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales_ | | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp | | But recession is a macroeconomic term that may not reflect the | actual impact on consumers -- conusumers could be suffering | through an economic downturn that's not technically a | "recession". | tootie wrote: | Yeah, recession start and ends can only really be determined | accurately in retrospect. And like you said it's marked by | the decline meaning it starts when growth hits its high point | and ends when it hits a low point. In terms "feeling" like a | recession, it'll be more like midway through the descent | until midway into a recovery. A stock market crash is | frequently a leading indicator of a GDP recession though not | always. We could be seeing the early signs of recession for | the past six months, but we won't really know for a while. | ErikAugust wrote: | However, I did notice their prominent advertising at the NBA | Finals... | celestialcheese wrote: | Probably already committed money. Still a terrible look. | gnicholas wrote: | It must have been hard for them to come up with an ad over | the last couple months that they knew would be | relevant/accurate no matter what happened in the markets. I | wonder if they had a different ad prepped and then subbed | this one in because of what happened. It was a visually | simple ad and presumably could have been created at the last | minute. | willturman wrote: | Crypto is dead. | m00x wrote: | Bold claims like this is what make people look like idiots | when things turn around. | | With experience though, you can tell that people who make | bold claims like this were always idiots gambling away their | credibility, hoping the 50/50 lands in their favour. | unicornmama wrote: | ssharp wrote: | I'm struggling to find a good analogy to these crypto | boom/bust cycles, where the market continues to | survive/thrive after the busts. The closest I can come up | with is real estate, but there is a core underlying value | in real estate in that people need space to | live/work/shop/whatever -- so when speculative bubbles | burst, there is pretty significant underlying demand. I | have a hard time drawing that parallel the crypto. | Certainly there are valuable use-cases but the main use- | case still seems to be as a speculative investment. | shrimpx wrote: | It's like betting and gambling. The losers keep coming | back thinking they can time it correctly this time | around. The game is basically putting money in to get it | higher, and timing the top. Crypto being largely | meaningless in terms of value is a perfect medium for the | game. | mjr00 wrote: | Not an asset class, but I'd draw parallels to Texas Hold | 'Em. In 2003, Chris Moneymaker wins $2.5 million at the | WSOP as an amateur who qualified through the internet; | within a year, everyone is talking about hold 'em, their | bankroll strategy, having poker nights with their | buddies, how they're playing 12 tables at once online, | etc. Culminates in massive mainstream acceptance, ads for | Pokerstars running on major networks, and a major plot | arc in a James Bond movie. But it turns out that nearly | everyone is a loser in online poker; after all, at a 6 | person table, only 1 person wins (well, 2nd place usually | gets their entry fee back, but still). Very few people | become Chris Moneymakers; most just lose a bit of cash, | some their life savings. | | Look at where hold 'em is now. It still exists, of | course, but you don't see poker tournaments broadcast | live on ESPN anymore. It's not even a very popular | livestreaming category. It definitely went through a | boom, then huge bust, and then a slide into... not really | _irrelevancy_ , just kind of a continued existence. | | IMO, crypto is headed for the same fate. It will still be | fun for a subset of people to gamble on altcoins, to pump | and dump and run schemes of dubious legality. And just | like I wouldn't count out a poker resurgence sometime in | the next decade, I wouldn't count out another crypto | spike in the future. People never stop loving easy money. | wly_cdgr wrote: | The flaw with your analogy is that poker continues to be | hugely popular worldwide. Check WSOP.com any time this | month | isoprophlex wrote: | Lets just hope the next craze doesn't use a bazillion | kWh's of electricity | djbusby wrote: | A fool is born every minute. there is an endless supply | of those who need to learn the hard way. Keeps the | Boom/Bust cycle going. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _struggling to find a good analogy to these crypto boom | /bust cycles_ | | Casinos. Seriously [1]. | | [1] | https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.13.3.173 | aquadoggy wrote: | In case you didn't get the reference, the Coinbase | commercial entirely consists of comments saying "Crypto is | dead" with various timestamps going back ten years, and | then ... "Long live crypto". | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCEvIiY0mR4 | pphysch wrote: | Still hodling beanie babies? | wonnage wrote: | There's no turnaround coming | TameAntelope wrote: | An equally as irrational position as, "Crypto is the best | thing ever!" | dkural wrote: | Was there an Enron turn-around? Crypto does some mildly | useful things, which could justify perhaps 1% of the | resources going into it. | thebean11 wrote: | That's about as useful as pointing to some equally | unrelated thing that did turn around. The truth is nobody | here knows either way, and if you did you'd be in the | process of becoming very wealthy on that knowledge. Let | me make a wild guess that you will not actually be | putting your money where your mouth is on this? | TameAntelope wrote: | Since we're just randomly linking unrelated things, FedEx | turned their business around after their CEO saved it | from bankruptcy at the blackjack table[0]. | | [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/fedex-saved-from- | bankruptcy-... | spookthesunset wrote: | I mean the end state of crypto isn't a very positive one. | Either it will crash catastrophically or it will slowly | fizzle out until the majority of people just forget about | it. Either way, at some point virtually nobody will be | using it. | danuker wrote: | As long as fiat currency keeps getting pumped out, people | will want something else, more scarce, to hold their | wealth in. | | That could be bonds, gold, stocks, real estate, or why | not crypto? Crypto is easy to transfer. | thinkharderdev wrote: | Because it doesn't seem like Crypto is a good inflation | hedge. If you're worried about inflation from unwise | increases in the fiat money supply, then it seems like | you want something with intrinsic value (real estate, | other tangible assets, inflation protected bonds, etc), | but crypto is the opposite of that. It's too volatile to | be an actual currency so what is it exactly other than a | purely speculative asset? | fullshark wrote: | The end state of crypto is the currency of illegal | transactions, which are never going away. | uncomputation wrote: | Speculative assets rarely crash, despite people wanting | the drama of it all. If ETH went to $100, enough people | would buy it in the hopes it would skyrocket again and | make them fabulously wealthy, pushing the price up, but | lower than last time, until it cycled back and so on | until it fizzles out. | mushbino wrote: | ...long live crypto. | hintymad wrote: | Why they need these many people for an exchange is puzzling. I'm | sure there are many things to do, but shouldn't they grow their | headcount organically and slowly? | greggsy wrote: | They have a few different service offerings, ranging from | compliance to web3 infrastructure: | https://www.coinbase.com/cloud/blockchain-infrastructure | | They also presumably have hefty cyber, legal and financial | audit teams to protect their assets, and position themselves in | preparation for any changes in the landscape (which has been | pretty rocky to say the least). | hintymad wrote: | Still, why thousands of engineers? | greggsy wrote: | Didn't see any mention of engineers, or any specific part | of their workforce. Could have been regional regulatory | experts, marketing, admin, gardeners... | bsuvc wrote: | > shouldn't they grow their headcount organically and slowly? | | You would think so, but a lot of companies who are/were venture | backed don't think this way. | | There is a tremendous pressure to use funding to accelerate | growth, which can work fine in a good economy, but can be a | disaster in a recession when no amount of capital can speed up | growth. | mrzimmerman wrote: | Blitz-scaling is still the primary mindset at a lot of | startups (at least where I've worked or the companies I've | come into contact with). They may use some other term but the | "grab market share as fast as possible and worry about | profitability later" is the general strategy. | | I think this leads to a lot of companies making bad calls | like over hiring or building awkward products. I'm not saying | blitz-scaling can't be a strategy, I just think it's treated | as the only strategy that matters and people end up in | hammer/nail situations. | julianlam wrote: | When you have obscene amounts of money, your perception of what | is normal goes out the window. | jstummbillig wrote: | Do tell. | | On a more serious note and the likely answer to the question: | customer support for 100000000 customers (as has been pointed | out elsewhere in this thread) | hintymad wrote: | I thought people would have learned from Uber's gross failure | of overhiring by now and taken a few pages from Netflix's | playbook | azemetre wrote: | What is Netflix doing differently? I know they had some | internal struggles between different media faces (prestige | content versus chasing the masses), are you referring to | them paying high salaries but having a smaller workforce? | hintymad wrote: | They used to have small teams to build great systems, | like 4 people taking care of a very sophisticated | monitoring infra[1] | | [1] https://www.quora.com/Are-Netflix-employees-really- | that-good... | hardtke wrote: | Is it an exchange or more like a lead gen company? I thought | coinbase's business model was to advertise heavily to get | newbie crypto investors on their platform and then to charge | wildly inflated commissions compared to other exchanges. Kind | of like a Rocket mortgage for crypto. Unfortunately in that | business model gross revenue directly tracks the price of | bitcoin. | joering2 wrote: | In my opinion this is what greed does to people. Doesn't matter | your background. Armstrong was here on HN pointing out his vision | of free exchange of currency at close to zero rates. He wanted to | fight "the big guys", including credit cards mafia and PayPal | mafia. What A WONDERFUL goal. | | What he ended up with, is obnoxious exchange rates @ Coinbase | (triple what credit cards charge), hundreds of thousands of | ruined lives, lots of suicides, and $100 million dollar mansion. | | What A RECORD. | | Don't get me wrong - I would love to live Armstrong's life | (although I wouldn't be this shrewd), but as someone who believes | in heaven and hell, I definitely would not want to die as | Armstrong. | djbusby wrote: | "lots of suicides" - that's bold claim. In searches I've only | found one related to CB. One is not "lots" | joering2 wrote: | you don't know cryptocurrency took a lot of lives?? | | https://twitter.com/JohnBrownlow/status/1524375188426702849 | sytelus wrote: | You can't attribute suicides of people investing in crypto | to Armstrong. I think Armstrong had a great vision and ok | execution (I would give grade D but not F). Overhiring was | irresponsible. Out of control costs were unneccessory. But | you have to understand that founders in this space have | enormous pressure to grow, try new ideas and new products | as they are constantly at risk by other players (Cashapp, | Paypal etc). | | Before Coinbase, investing in crypto was super murkey even | without all the volatility. They were able to make crypto | accessible and provide marketplace that is not full of | scams (so far). For people who controlled their risk by not | exceeding crypto investment beyod 1% of their networth, it | was great way to get in the market. If Ukrain war + COVID | didn't exist, they had a decent chance realizing vision. If | they can survive the storm, I think they would still be the | most trusted crypto marketplace. | catsarebetter wrote: | Though my perspective is that you're taking some of this stuff | really extreme, you are a talented visual writer and I enjoyed | reading this comment a lot lol | 99_00 wrote: | They are doing layoffs because crypto is a speculative bubble | fueled by liquidity. And now that liquidity is disappearing | crypto is rapidly losing value. | | It's not because a person is greedy. | a4isms wrote: | Would this be the Coinbase whose CEO just spent $133 million on a | home? | | https://www.ibtimes.com/inside-coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrongs... | | Capitalism is a harsh mistress. | ForHackernews wrote: | > Capitalism is a harsh mistress. | | Not for CEOs, it's not. He already got rich off the IPO. | daenz wrote: | There's nothing wrong with people collectively giving someone | money. | unethical_ban wrote: | With the context of what wealth inequality is doing to | society and what political power raw money brings to people, | I posit there is a line where it is wrong. | daenz wrote: | If 1 million people want to give 1 person 10 dollars, and | your response is "we should control how those 1 million | spend their 10 dollars", and not "we should prevent | politicians from selling their influence", then you're | hurting the people you want to help. | missedthecue wrote: | Bezos is probably the most unpopular person in Washington. | We don't have a president Bloomberg. I submit to you that | you are vastly overestimating the amount of political power | having money automatically brings someone. | ihumanable wrote: | Power and office are two different things. Someone can | exercise a great deal of power in advancing or killing | legislation while never holding office and allowing all | the office holders to call them names on TV. | | What matters is what policies are enacted. Here's a nice | video on the topic that summarizes a Princeton study | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig | [deleted] | uncomputation wrote: | If Armstrong was the sole CTO, COO, CPO, CLO, designer, | marketer, advertiser, programmer, and researcher, then yes, | all money should go to him. But Coinbase was made what it is | by many people, the majority of which have nothing close to | wealth Armstrong enjoys. Why shouldn't those people be given | money? | | I agree there should be some incentive for entrepreneurs and | the people who make "the business side" work, but doesn't the | degree of difference between Armstrong and his average | employee strike you as unfair? | daenz wrote: | >Why shouldn't those people be given money? | | They were given money: their compensation that they agreed | and accepted as being fair payment for their labor. | uncomputation wrote: | Let's be conservative and say Armstrong has just a net | worth of the house he bought: 150,000,000. If the average | employee's salary is 150,000, Armstrong makes 1,000 times | more than them. Does this seem fair? Does he deserve | higher compensation for his entrepreneurial skills? | Absolutely. But 1,000? It's hard for us to imagine the | scale of 1,000 times greater than something but it seems | excessive (and remember, this is being extremely | conservative). Does he really work 1,000 times harder | than the average employee? | | These aren't rhetorical questions by the way. I genuinely | want to know, what do you think? | Dma54rhs wrote: | Programmers wages in America are for the vast majority of | the world obscene as well. It depends where do you draw | the line, American programmer is most likely the 1% for | the world. | uncomputation wrote: | Don't really see the relevance here? America is also more | expensive than the majority of the world. I'm not | comparing the wealth of impoverished people to the | average American programmer. I am comparing the wealth of | Coinbase employees to the wealth of the Coinbase CEO, | whose company is successful only because of those | employees. If the American programmer is global 1%, then | Armstrong would be global 0.001% so the inequality isn't | changed. | daenz wrote: | You ignored my response to your post completely and re- | iterated the exact same point, so I don't think you are | listening or actually care to hear what I think, because | if you did, you would know that I already answered you. | roflulz wrote: | as someone who has actually tried to start a company - he | deserves it and more | sytelus wrote: | This is the most fundamental tenant of capitalism. The | output is _perpetually_ distributed according to initial | risk taken, not according to amount of day-to-day work | performed. The property of capital is that it keeps growing | (more or less) effortlessly. So you just need to capture | initial capital and pay employees only _returns from | capital_ , not the capital itself. Fun fact: Bill Gates has | made vastly more money just sitting around in his | "retirement" than working his ass off for 30 years in | Microsoft every day. | oh_sigh wrote: | You'll be happy to learn that no one is confiscating the | private assets of those who have been laid off. | | Also, its $133M, but let's be honest it's really like $110M for | the land and then a $20M mansion on it. | cyode wrote: | Since this is Coinbase we're talking about, I assume the last | $3M went to fees. | greggsy wrote: | It's entirely possible that he has used his unique position to | make further gains on the crypto market. He may have also | secured a loan on the basis of a future sale. | jmyeet wrote: | I honestly thought the pandemic would be the trigger for a | recession. Clearly that wasn't the case (or at least it was a | delayed effect). This doesn't seem to be a case where a single | event triggered a recession (eg subprime in 2008). It seems to be | a combination of events. | | Inflation is a big one. This one is interesting because the two | biggest factors (housing and gas) are completely artificial price | hikes. Housing is a double whammy because we had artificially | cheaper housing in the last 2 years because of the pandemic. That | makes price hikes seem worse than they are (note: there still are | significant price hieks in rents). There's pent up demand from | the pandemic. There's some institutional buying of homes (which | honestly should be outlawed). But really it's just price hikes | "because we can". | | Gas was triggered by Ukraine but that's just another "because we | can" situation. The Biden administration could ban exports of | refined petroleum products if they really wanted to apply | downward pressure to gas prices. It's not that Biden has a bad | energy policy. He seems to have no energy policy. | | And then there's crypto. What a lot of people are learning is | that the only thing holding up the crypto bubble was the | collective belief in continued speculative gains. That's | literally it, even for the (supposed) stablecoins. | | I personally see crypto as a massive waste of energy (eg Bitcoin | energy usage is about the same as Sweden's) for very little | utility so I personally hoped the bubble would burst because | crypto is such a massive example of a solution desperately | searching for a problem. I can't say this was or is inevitable. | Collective delusion can last a really long time. But I hope the | bubble does burst. | | Obviously this sucks if you work (or, rather, _worked_ ) for | Coinbase. At least they're getting some severance. It may be a | rough time for finding a new job, even for software engineers, | for a couple of years, something that hasn't really been true for | >12 years. | tootie wrote: | > I honestly thought the pandemic would be the trigger for a | recession | | Um, did you miss the 2020 recession? It was the sharpest | decline in GDP and employment in national history. It was also | met with an historic government response to stave off poverty. | And you can absolutely still point to the current inflation as | unwinding from pandemic. | whimsicalism wrote: | > But really it's just price hikes "because we can". | | This is just an absolutely wrong-headed understanding of what | is causing inflation that is premised on some corporate | benevolence that existed prior to 2020 that no longer exists. | [0] The question to ask is "why are prices able to be raised | now"? The answer is contracting supply and surging demand. | | [0]: https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1525171240796712960 | idealmedtech wrote: | Previous discussion (694pts, 550 comments) | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31738029 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-14 23:00 UTC)