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.
> 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.
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."
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.