Dick Smith, Graham Marr and Richard Barnes are the only Australians among 400 millionaires and billionaires globally to sign an open letter calling for higher taxes on the super rich
A former work colleague of mine might. He’s well over half-way there at least and still gaining.
He quit his job and wrote some software that is used all over the world. If you make a thing and enough people buy it, you get rich. In his case, very rich. He didn’t inherit his wealth. He didn’t start out already a millionaire. His wealth is not coming from being a parasite on society. He isn’t taking resources or hoarding land. He’ll be the first to tell you he is monumentally lucky, but I also can’t see anything he’s doing that’s wrong.
$500 million purely in sales of software he wrote alone? That would be a feat for sure.
Nothing against him personally, just that buy-in-large this former colleague of yours would be an outlier, the ultra wealthy generally generate profits off the backs of other people’s work.
The part that’s wrong isn’t doing well and making money, it’s advocating against taxing corporations way more than we are, lobbying for loopholes, and engaging in rent seeking behaviour. Which is extremely, extremely common. Having some kind of cap on how much wealth you can amass seems sensible to me.
I’m sure he’s worked hard and done well for himself, but are we really suggesting that once you have money, you don’t “make your money work for you”? What that phrase really means is you can invest, which is only possible because of other people’s work at the end of the day.
Yes, I am doubting a bit that after his real work of creating a product, that the rest of the money he’s made is directly from that work, or made possible by a system that in general is profiting of the working class.
At a certain point allowing people to have vast sums of money is antithetical to democracy, which seems almost self-evident to most people no matter their other political views.
So no, your former work colleague hasn’t done anything wrong, but doesn’t mean it’s a great way for us to structure society. *Gestures broadly to everything*
$500 million purely in sales of software he wrote alone? That would be a feat for sure.
Initially, it was him and his wife, yes. Though they now have a decent sized company with a few hundred employees. I didn’t realise his venture had gotten so big until this thread and I googled him today. Before you get all angry that he’s “profiting off those people’s work”, ask whether those people are better off for working for him or if he should keep all the work and wealth to himself.
The part that’s wrong isn’t doing well and making money, it’s advocating against taxing corporations way more than we are, lobbying for loopholes, and engaging in rent seeking behaviour. Which is extremely, extremely common. Having some kind of cap on how much wealth you can amass seems sensible to me.
I haven’t heard of him doing any of those things. Of course I moved to the other side of the country and no longer move in the same circles as he does. He still has a reputation in IT circles for being a chill bloke, though.
I think perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
I need to reiterate that your former colleague is just living within the system we have, and I can’t make personal comment on whether or not he’s done any of the worse things I mentioned.
Initially, it was him and his wife, yes. Though they now have a decent sized company with a few hundred employees.
How is this not proving my point?
He has a decent sized company, that generates profits for him from the labour of their workers, who share in a smaller share of those profits. And this is the typical arrangement. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that (in most cases) the amount of profit people generate vs what they get paid is just.
I’m sure he’s worked hard - well, I guess he has - but it can’t be denied that his excess wealth is only possible because of other people’s continued labour.
if he should keep all the work and wealth to himself
This is fundamentally what we disagree on. He didn’t “share” the work. He had an idea, worked hard on that idea, and then hired other people in order to grow his company and make more money. That’s capitalism, and people pretend as if it’s the only way we can structure society. As if innovation would stop existing without the profit motive.
Innovation would happen regardless. The profit motive only “drives innovation” because that’s how we’ve structured things to work. I also find the claim doesn’t hold water because a huge portion of innovations are already from publically funded university research which otherwise wouldn’t be funded.
Currently a few people profit massively off other people’s labour, and looking at wealth inequality, and pay inequality, it’s getting worse and worse every year.
Unless one has the opinion than a tiny percentage of the population is thousands of tens-of-thousands times more productive and deserving than everyone else, then it’s kind of hard to argue the current state of the world makes sense.
I have no issue with some people making more money than others to reflect their harder work. But only to a point. The profit motive seems like a stupid way to do this though, because it’s also pretty plain to see that innovating is probably not even the main way more profit is achieved.
Monopolies, dark patterns, price gouging, wage theft off-shoring and other anti-competitive behaviours are far more common paths.
Again, nothing against your former colleague personally, as I don’t know him.
People absolutely do earn a billion dollars. If you “abolish” billionaires you abolish the drive, determination, innovation etc that creates billionaires who have made some of the most world changing things in history.
All of the world’s billionaires have amassed their wealth off other people’s labour.
If you can name me ONE billionaire who hasn’t, I’ll be extremely shocked. One billionaire who just worked for their money.
Selling something to investors is indirectly profiting off others labour, just in advance. You think the investors pull up their sleeves and generate billions? Lol. No no, they get workers to make whatever business profitable.
Some billionaires may have created something worthwhile (Taylor Swift, for example), even she has an army of workers who make her continued career possible. (Even though she definitely was a “self-made” billionaire starting without massive capital).
Billions is so much you can practically never spend it. And no one can work literally >1000x (or much, much more) harder than someone else. Or generate something so worthwhile they deserve billions.
You don’t need the profit motive for people to create great things. The creator of insulin sold the patent for $1. And countries like Denmark (while still be capitalists) are proof that more people would be entrepreneurial if they have more of a safety net to try. We’re probably missing out of tonnes of innovation simply because the person hasn’t been given the chance through education or they’re in poverty.
And we only have poverty because we live in a system where you can amass unlimited wealth, on the backs of everyday people, instead of the workers sharing in the profits of their labour.
Without the labour of others, or the proceeds from the labour of others (advertising, investment, etc), it’s impossible to make a billion dollars.
We could abolish billionaires entirely. No one needs a billion dollars. No one “earns” a billion dollars.
The person you replied to openly supports the March for Australia crowd abd it’s demands.
What on earth does anyone’s opinions on a march got to do with the topic at hand?
A former work colleague of mine might. He’s well over half-way there at least and still gaining.
He quit his job and wrote some software that is used all over the world. If you make a thing and enough people buy it, you get rich. In his case, very rich. He didn’t inherit his wealth. He didn’t start out already a millionaire. His wealth is not coming from being a parasite on society. He isn’t taking resources or hoarding land. He’ll be the first to tell you he is monumentally lucky, but I also can’t see anything he’s doing that’s wrong.
$500 million purely in sales of software he wrote alone? That would be a feat for sure.
Nothing against him personally, just that buy-in-large this former colleague of yours would be an outlier, the ultra wealthy generally generate profits off the backs of other people’s work.
The part that’s wrong isn’t doing well and making money, it’s advocating against taxing corporations way more than we are, lobbying for loopholes, and engaging in rent seeking behaviour. Which is extremely, extremely common. Having some kind of cap on how much wealth you can amass seems sensible to me.
I’m sure he’s worked hard and done well for himself, but are we really suggesting that once you have money, you don’t “make your money work for you”? What that phrase really means is you can invest, which is only possible because of other people’s work at the end of the day.
Yes, I am doubting a bit that after his real work of creating a product, that the rest of the money he’s made is directly from that work, or made possible by a system that in general is profiting of the working class.
At a certain point allowing people to have vast sums of money is antithetical to democracy, which seems almost self-evident to most people no matter their other political views.
So no, your former work colleague hasn’t done anything wrong, but doesn’t mean it’s a great way for us to structure society. *Gestures broadly to everything*
Initially, it was him and his wife, yes. Though they now have a decent sized company with a few hundred employees. I didn’t realise his venture had gotten so big until this thread and I googled him today. Before you get all angry that he’s “profiting off those people’s work”, ask whether those people are better off for working for him or if he should keep all the work and wealth to himself.
I haven’t heard of him doing any of those things. Of course I moved to the other side of the country and no longer move in the same circles as he does. He still has a reputation in IT circles for being a chill bloke, though.
I think perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
I need to reiterate that your former colleague is just living within the system we have, and I can’t make personal comment on whether or not he’s done any of the worse things I mentioned.
How is this not proving my point?
He has a decent sized company, that generates profits for him from the labour of their workers, who share in a smaller share of those profits. And this is the typical arrangement. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that (in most cases) the amount of profit people generate vs what they get paid is just.
I’m sure he’s worked hard - well, I guess he has - but it can’t be denied that his excess wealth is only possible because of other people’s continued labour.
This is fundamentally what we disagree on. He didn’t “share” the work. He had an idea, worked hard on that idea, and then hired other people in order to grow his company and make more money. That’s capitalism, and people pretend as if it’s the only way we can structure society. As if innovation would stop existing without the profit motive.
Innovation would happen regardless. The profit motive only “drives innovation” because that’s how we’ve structured things to work. I also find the claim doesn’t hold water because a huge portion of innovations are already from publically funded university research which otherwise wouldn’t be funded.
Currently a few people profit massively off other people’s labour, and looking at wealth inequality, and pay inequality, it’s getting worse and worse every year.
Unless one has the opinion than a tiny percentage of the population is thousands of tens-of-thousands times more productive and deserving than everyone else, then it’s kind of hard to argue the current state of the world makes sense.
I have no issue with some people making more money than others to reflect their harder work. But only to a point. The profit motive seems like a stupid way to do this though, because it’s also pretty plain to see that innovating is probably not even the main way more profit is achieved.
Monopolies, dark patterns, price gouging, wage theft off-shoring and other anti-competitive behaviours are far more common paths.
Again, nothing against your former colleague personally, as I don’t know him.
People absolutely do earn a billion dollars. If you “abolish” billionaires you abolish the drive, determination, innovation etc that creates billionaires who have made some of the most world changing things in history.
All of the world’s billionaires have amassed their wealth off other people’s labour.
If you can name me ONE billionaire who hasn’t, I’ll be extremely shocked. One billionaire who just worked for their money.
Selling something to investors is indirectly profiting off others labour, just in advance. You think the investors pull up their sleeves and generate billions? Lol. No no, they get workers to make whatever business profitable.
Some billionaires may have created something worthwhile (Taylor Swift, for example), even she has an army of workers who make her continued career possible. (Even though she definitely was a “self-made” billionaire starting without massive capital).
Billions is so much you can practically never spend it. And no one can work literally >1000x (or much, much more) harder than someone else. Or generate something so worthwhile they deserve billions.
You don’t need the profit motive for people to create great things. The creator of insulin sold the patent for $1. And countries like Denmark (while still be capitalists) are proof that more people would be entrepreneurial if they have more of a safety net to try. We’re probably missing out of tonnes of innovation simply because the person hasn’t been given the chance through education or they’re in poverty.
And we only have poverty because we live in a system where you can amass unlimited wealth, on the backs of everyday people, instead of the workers sharing in the profits of their labour.
Without the labour of others, or the proceeds from the labour of others (advertising, investment, etc), it’s impossible to make a billion dollars.