In other words, he built on the privileges he already had… that doesn’t mean he didn’t work hard, but that he didn’t come up from nothing, like you said. The “self-made” man is largely a myth and the people who make fortunes in American don’t come up from utter poverty. And Microsoft often had questionable business practices over the years, in addition to all that.
There is no level playing field, it does not exist. Gates was not starting from the same place as many others.
To be fair, Gates is clearly one of those rich people who believes in giving a good chunk of his money away and not leaving it for his children to inherit. He and Buffet started the “Giving Pledge” to convince billionaires to give away at least half of their worth to charities. (Of course, inheriting even millions instead of billions makes his children super-wealthy anyways.) And, of course, that doesn’t change the problems of a) how Gates got that money in the first place and b) single individuals having that much power in deciding what the worthy causes are that are worth supporting (e.g. they tend to go for the big, showy attempts to solve some problem rather than fund working welfare programs that directly benefit people who need the help, or basic, highly-unsexy infrastructure work).
Sure. Again… I don’t think I called him evil, did I? I didn’t even think I implied it… Did anyone imply he was evil?
Honestly, I’d much rather live in a world where we aren’t dependent upon the good will of people who hoard resources to make sure that we have a basic level of welfare in the world. It causes nothing but on end of problems in the first place.
I just mean that he’s someone who is honestly trying to give away his money, rather than doing so to hold on to what he has as a tax dodge (… and yet, he’s still accumulating crazy wealth).
Yeah, absolutely - especially since even when we can rely on them to give away their money, it’s still not being used in the same ways it would if it were being collected as taxes the way it once would have (e.g. the aforementioned welfare and infrastructure). Plus, I notice that so many tech billionaires end up giving money to programs that have a sort of libertarian “helping those who help themselves” bent, i.e. give money for programs that ultimately are aimed at people who are relatively middle class…
Hm. Maybe both are at play here? [quote=“Shuck, post:127, topic:83939”]
I notice that so many tech billionaires end up giving money to programs that have a sort of libertarian “helping those who help themselves” bent, i.e. give money for programs that ultimately are aimed at people who are relatively middle class…
[/quote]
Yep. I think that’s totally true.
So um… what exactly are the mechanisms by which a wealthy person’s money increases at such a great rate and how would someone with approximately 0.0001% as much money use those same principles? For research purposes…
Why do people act like intellectual capital isn’t acquired on similar terms as physical capital? This is odd. Intellectual capital gets you farther in life than people suspect. If you can pay for a year of college, and never matriculate, you still do better earnings-wise in the long term than a high school graduate.
Well, but that depends on the type of intellectual capital that’s being accrued, doesn’t it? Not all forms of knowledge are considered equally valued. [ETA] Scientific and business knowledge will get you further than other kinds of knowledge.
Could be. Wikipedia says the estate tax basically was established in 1916. I don’t know the rates. That was about in the middle of the Vanderbilt fortune decline. Another factor is the Commodore made a ton of money and it keeps getting divided and lost by an increasing number of heirs. This is not something I’m an expert in.
My impression is if you look at lists of rich people, most of them started out of modest means. Not all but most, and of the ones who inherited, most of those are children of Self Made People.
Clearly only one person can be #1. Yes, Gates worked hard but he was also the lucky one to succeed.
Where did he get his money? The initial 60 billion or so was Microsoft stock, not investments. The next 30 billion, I don’t know, probably a mix. I don’t know how much MS stock he owns. I also don’t understand how much he owns directly and how much is via the Gates Foundation (if that matters).
I sort of agree… but I think it goes deeper than specific subject matter. I think you’ll do better as someone who can leverage writing skill into a successful comedic career than someone who has real technical knowledge, but can’t translate it into lucrative work either because they lack sufficient credentials/equipment or they’re not good with people. (The lone ubergenius is another myth that needs execution.)
On the other hand, my father hired and fired and taught me more than a few lessons about schmoozing and handshaking. These aren’t lessons everyone gets and I’d be lying if I said technical or scientific knowledge was more beneficial than these soft skills and my ability to write a well-worded cover-letter. While not all my jobs have been stellar, I’ve managed to largely avoid minimum wage and sublegal wages. This is largely anecdotal, but metaknowledge and an appreciation for knowledge are things that are usually only taught to people with relative wealth, and pretty much describe the first two years of university as long as you’re paying attention. I learned more about the sciences in high school than I did in university before I dropped out.
Not that much these days (relatively speaking - its still $Bns) - 4%, apparently. Less than Steve Ballmer.
Talking in general about capitalism and the exploitation of labor… it’s more than that. At least in the US, we sacrifice our health, educational and career opportunities, and in far too many cases even basic survival necessities, for the sake of someone else’s profits. To me that’s a much bigger issue.
I think I get paid pretty well. But I spend as much on medicine as I do on my mortgage, and that’s with insurance. My spouse is just about stuck in a dead-end part time job that she hasn’t enjoyed for the last 5 years or so. And we’re some of the fortunate ones.
There are six times as many empty houses in the US as there are homeless people, but they can’t just be given a place to live because that wouldn’t be “fair” according to our system.
Piketty’s research into economic inequality has been a significant influence on policy in France, a country with a high standard of living, good social programs and the third largest economy in Europe. No idea how to measure his contribution either but a lot of what made Microsoft’s products successful was stolen ideas and anticompetitive practices. The IT market was going to explode one way or another and a lot of Gates’ business intelligence was about clawing his way to the top of the pile and staying there, so it’s not clear to me exactly how many or what kind of jobs he actually created.
So yeah I dunno, but Piketty didn’t just write “a good book,” he is a serious academic and his work has had real impact on many lives.
Silly… everyone knows that the only true winner is the guy with the most $$$!!! Those are just some wimmins with some jewelry! /s
And, most importantly: he had family on the board of IBM, who pushed for their nephew to get the contract for the whole PC thing.
And that is the player who scores the most moneypoints.
Honestly, I didn’t even realize this until today (I think someone mentioned it upthread). This is much more common than people think, having these sorts of connections that are exploitable. Rich people know other rich people who can help them to stay rich or get much richer. All of this just serves to confirm Piketty’s primary point, that the abillity to amass wealth rests in having access to various ways of exploiting one’s wealth and having that capital in the first place. He’s not making a particularly novel or groundbreaking argument, if you pay any sort of attention to the modern world at all…
