[Geniuzz]

> But those founders be content with merely making a hundred million?

What does this mean? Without some insane wealth tax this is literally impossible. No founder chooses to become a billionaire. They just keep growing a business that is solving a billion dollar problem.

The only other was is if after 100M they start turning down customers or restricting services.

[jrajav]

This is conflating businesses that solve billion dollar problems with people who individually contribute so much to a business that they solved the billion dollar problem all on their own. The latter is probably possible, but it's not necessarily the case that all billionaires and up today were such individuals.

It might be that if personal wealth alone were (effectively, by taxation) capped to $100m, we would still have exactly as much collective wealth, innovation, and value creation as we do today. Possibly more, because of more wealth distributed onto shared infrastructure and into the fluid economy.

[therealdrag0]

They can continue growing the business while giving other employees a larger share of the asset. One person doesn’t create a billion dollar company, dozens or thousands do. After founding, other people who don’t become billionaires work similarly hard and are similarly smart as the founder. This is why people dispute “earning” a billion dollars.

[nfw2]

You don't have a solution unless you can propose a way this gets legislated and executed. No hand waving. How specifically does this work? Suppose it is day one of my shares being worth more than 100m. What happens?

[therealdrag0]

I didn’t say I did have a solution :). There’s value on agreeing or disagreeing that a problem exists without needing a solution. Dismissing a problem based on the viability of a solution is a strange fallacy.

[deaux]

You've asked this about 10 times in this thread, I've provided a very straightforward manner elsewhere as a reply to you and am eagerly looking forward on what you come up with to claim that it's impossible.

[nfw2]

> I am eagerly looking forward on what you come up with to claim that it's impossible.

Since you aren't willing to engage in a discussion in good faith, implying whatever I have to say about your 5th-grader-level economic plan to just seize all the shares is bs, I recommend you ask chatgpt why it doesn't work.

[deaux]

My latest reply to you was "Yes.". Might want to feed the thread to chatgpt and ask it if that's "not willing to engage in a discussion in good faith".

[lkjdsklf]

It's pretty easy.

You can just cap total compensation for executives relative to the lowest paid worker and include equity in that calculation. If you want to pay yourself, 10 million a year in stock, great... You need to pay the lowest paid person 10k in stock or whatever.

Or, you can mandate that after a certain size a worker owned trust/union will own some percentage of the company.

There's dozens of ways you could address this problem. Each have pros/cons. It's not that hard to fix if we actually wanted to fix it though.

[nfw2]

The founders already have the equity, they aren't receiving more on an ongoing basis.

[lkjdsklf]

We’re not talking about founders. We’re talking about executives.

Executives do get equity as part of their compensation and it’s a huge reason for the massive disparity in wealth.

This is well studied stuff.

[therealdrag0]

Why are we not talking about founders? They are the most likely to have obscene wealth.

[tensility]

This...100%

[anon291]

My old startup got bought out and while I can't know if the CEO became a billionaire, why do I care if he did? I made out with a shit ton of money so what? Why are people so jealous of other people? Of all industries, tech is probably the most likely to share... I mean look at spacex where even janitors and cafe workers were given equity, whereas most companies would contract that out

[therealdrag0]

I’m not jealous or losing any sleep over this. But it’s worth evaluating in our quest for a more perfect world. Something “feels unjust” about the current wealth inequality. Maybe it’s the best possible situation, but maybe not.

Imagine you lived in a feudal kingdom. Would you just shrug at all the wealth of kings and lords made off your back? Most people did, but thank god times have changed for the better. Perhaps we can change them to be better still.

[anon291]

Feels fine to me. I agree we need to create a world in which everyone's basic material needs are met but given America's history I think we have probably the ones with the system that'll get us closest to that ideal.

[olleromam91]

Nobody is jealous. They are pissed that excessively wealthy people can pay their way to success and influence the US government, for their continued personal gain. It’s about fairness and democracy, not luxury.

[bluecheese452]

Taxes. So insane.