[domk]

This essay feels really dishonest. It tries to simplify the vastly complex problem of income inequality, on which there is a sea of existing, detailed research, into a simple "it's easier to start companies now" argument. And it doesn't even explore that argument in that much depth.

What about bottom incomes? Why have those barely increased in real terms in the last 30 years, while the top 1% of incomes has been shooting steadily up? Surely that's nothing to do with people starting companies.

[pradn]

His constant defense of high-risk startups also acts as a defense of his own wealth. If you can do it, and deserve wealth for succeeding, I must deserve my wealth for the companies I've founded. I'm not saying one shouldn't be rewarded for founding useful businesses. I'm saying there's a whole lot of mystification, self-mythmaking, and luck involved.

For the average person, being born to a somewhat comfortable family, being able to train yourself into a good career, and being able to save and invest in a mundane way are far safer and comfortable ways to live a good, secure life. The gulf in security between someone like him now, and anyone but the very top percentiles in wealth is literally unimaginable for him, because he doesn't live the reality of an average person. His constant push in this direction is not much more than "let them eat cake", or "let them found startups".

[lupire]

pg has never cared about the average person. His thesis has always been that average people are bad and nerds should take over the world.

[ashtonkem]

Some of his bits about the superiority of the hacker mentality lead to some really distressing places if they're extended from the office and into politics.

[david927]

It's not just dishonest -- it's gross. Paul needs to spend less time on yachts. Being a mouthpiece to try to find a morality in increasing income inequality, when so many are suffering, more each year, is simply vile.

[ludocode]

> You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has finally prevailed. But none of them seem to be. You can almost hear them saying "No, no, not that way."

This line is particularly disgusting. Labor has not prevailed. Labor in fact has been crushed by deregulation, union busting, automation, and most importantly globalization. Real wages have been stagnant for over 40 years while the cost of living continues to increase.

Paul Graham is delusional. He thinks that we're all getting richer because 0.01% of the population has the means to start a startup.

[drewkime]

You're mis-reading him. You need to understand that this entire essay is an attempt to define tech founders as "labor". That's the only way any of what he's saying makes sense. So it's not really about, "how to get rich," but instead, "My friends and I aren't the next generation of robber barons, we're working-class folks like you."

[hindsightbias]

He must be in some world where all labor gets rich on RSUs and not the one where they're worthless or have pensions defaulted to the PBGC.

Let them eat soylent.

[danans]

> He must be in some world where all labor gets rich on RSUs

He's even out of touch with that kind of labor.

Even in RSU land, most don't get "rich" (meaning enough $ to work electively) from them. Companies have increasingly been shifting regular pay to things like RSUs.

Many people at RSU granting companies are using the proceeds to pay their mortgages or for childcare.

[zozbot234]

> That line is disgusting. Labor has not prevailed

Workers in newly industrializing countries have seen huge gains in incomes. That's "labor" as well, and those gains should be counted when asking whether "labor" has done well.

[ashtonkem]

I believe he’s talking about the US here, where labor is definitely losing at the moment.

[ashtonkem]

Right wing thinkers, PG definitely among them, seem obsessed with this idea that the left won. I literally have no idea what world they've been observing, but it doesn't seem to overlap very much with the one I occupy.

[GeorgeTirebiter]

PG is probably not delusional. To make such a claim without proper evidence is probably suggesting you may be having an emotion response to what he wrote. Understood. Not Cool to call people 'delusional' with paltry evidence.

I know PG only a little, but I think his intention was to stir the pot on this old debate.

But yes, for the lower 70% that have as much wealth as the top 10% (and it takes about $ 95K net worth to be in that top 10%) it would be difficult to make a case that 'labor has prevailed over capital'. I would enjoy hearing more about PG's argument to support this claim.

What I see is the surplus is now going mostly to the very top -- which appears to be the point PG is making!

[ludocode]

He is either delusional or he's lying. How else can you explain his claim that labor has prevailed?

As Amazon and Tesla employees fail to unionize, as Uber buys a law to avoid treating their drivers as employees, as the Democrats fail to increase the minimum wage despite holding all three branches of government, as the US is the only western nation without universal health care... What honest person can look at the current state of America and think labor is winning?

The children of upper middle class parents getting rich by starting startups is not labor prevailing over capital. It's just capital. It's just the rich getting richer.

[ashtonkem]

Nit: Democrats definitely don’t hold all three branches of government. They hold two, the Supreme Court is 6/3 conservative. Democrats have two chambers of one branch, the legislature, by the thinnest margins possible.

[gofreddygo]

This essay is distasteful more than dishonest.

If I were to read an article " How seaweed is making the entire human race more productive"; one trying to reason why you should consume seaweed if you want to be more productive, penned by someone who actively owns portions of companies involved in growing, packaging, promoting and distributing seaweed, it would feel suspicious and distasteful.

This is in the same league.

[boatsie]

The inequality is also being caused by the internet. Before, people would choose a product, restaurant, retailer, service, entertainment, etc based on what was near them. Or what they had a good experience with. Or what their neighbor recommended. But now the internet has pushed everything into what’s “best”. So if a company comes out with a great product or service, it can get huge and popular fast. Same with movies and music, the distribution and popularity travel basically at the speed of light. This is the meme economy and keeps pushing things to the head of the curve, while the tail gets longer and flatter. That then trickles down to the companies/founders/shareholders etc.

[francisthesixth]

> But now the internet has pushed everything into what’s “best”.

You put it as it was a bad thing per se. Moreover, what’s your suggestion?

[zozbot234]

> What about bottom incomes? Why have those barely increased in real terms in the last 30 years

Because the main source of productivity growth in that period was technical change, and those who were not well positioned to adapt were stuck at the bottom of the income ladder. Of course there were other factors (globalization, increasing costs in some sectors putting pressure on real incomes etc.), but that's the main story. It's quite consistent with Graham's argument.