I really think that the word "billionaire" needs to stop being used as a bad word.
Billionaires are citizens too. They are bound (imperfectly) by laws. Therefore they too encounter situations where practicing civil disobedience makes sense.
Billionaires are indeed citizens and no one is taking away their rights, per se. However, it is my opinion that as a class of people they should not exist (astute readers know how to flag clear opinions so they need not always be noted as such for the sake of brevity). In 2018 the median household income in the US was $63,179 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N; numbers from other sources vary a bit but all around that point), and of course most people don’t have much for savings. $1B : $63,179 :: $15,828 : $1. My household income is quite a bit above the median and puts me in the top few percentiles, depending on how one adjusts for location. I pay a fair bit in taxes. I feel plenty incentivized to work hard; I would like to earn more and have a bit more money. At the same time, I have been incredibly fortunate in a variety of ways. It is difficult for me to see any credible policy rationale for why anyone should have 10,000 times more money than the median American household (and that’s for a modest billionaire). The extralegal advantages that come with such wealth are considerable, and worthy of pejorative usage.
What do you propose should happen in Bezos' case? Let's assume that he doesn't have $139B in the bank, but most of his wealth is the value of his Amazon stock. Should he be forced to give up his ownership in the company he built? I have heard people opine that people like Bezos should be taxed at 90%, but what if he doesn't sell his shares?
If he wants to sell $10M or so to buy a nice house and a new car, do you think he doesn't deserve to do so? Where do you draw the line?
> Should he be forced to give up his ownership in the company he built?
How do you even picture that claim? Is it Bezos literally building every warehouse with his own two hands? Is it him being at a thousand places at once dealing with paperwork, marketing and packaging all by himself? For every billionaire out there there are thousands of workers that were denied their share of the success. I would say the only way someone could be a honest "self made" billionaire is by mugging an other billionaire in a dark alley.
There's a colloquial sense of building something that doesn't require that you do 100% of the work yourself. For example, when people say they're building a house, almost always they're just hiring someone else to actually build it and all they've contributed was money.
Besides that, there are some billionaires that did get their wealth honestly in my estimation, like JK Rowling and Markus Persson.
When you say, “draw the line”, my gut reaction is “curves beat lines.” Cliff thresholds often lead to bad behavior. I think in all cases, not just with Bezos, the following tax policies should be under consideration. What the precise points should be is more a matter for experts. With the below in place, I don’t see too much harm with being a billionaire in stock in the company one founded.
- Significantly higher marginal tax rates further up the income ladder. US high end marginal tax rates are historically and relatively low; at the same time the US runs an incredible deficit. It’s crazy.
- Increasing tax rates on dividend earnings for individuals, so that they converge to the income tax rates based on some income/earnings thresholds. Large share holders like Bezos can make millions via dividends, and get a far better tax rate than you or I. It doesn’t make any sense. For mutual funds and companies, etc., dividend taxation could be treated as now without much negative impact.
- Increasing tax rates on capital gains when realized. If Bezos wants to sell $10M of stock to buy a fancy new house and car, great, but at some level of capital gains it makes sense for the rates to rise as it otherwise becomes another kind of income tax dodge.
- Inheritance taxes increasing steeply with the amount of the estate. Sam Walton worked his ass off; his kids didn’t. It’s perfectly normal to want to leave your kids something, but after a certain point it seems rather a social anti-pattern to have a trust fund class, especially at extreme amounts of wealth (which is what we are talking here).
- Limits on loss depreciation for individuals. Perhaps not quite as important but also subject to a lot of abuse.
Of course, I also think there’s much that needs to be done with campaign finance reform, lowering corporate tax rates, automatic antitrust provisions that come into play when a company becomes relatively too big, and increased penalties for corporate externalities (like privacy violations, pollution, etc.).
By "draw the line" I was referring to how much you would take from him if he wanted to convert some of his equity in Amazon into cash. Although I feel like I do appreciate the points you listed above, even with those measures in place there are no guarantees that "billionaires as a class of people" would cease to exist.
Certainly with someone like Bezos, unless you take it all there is going to be a number that will still net him a billion after all of the taxes. And if you do "take it all", then maybe the next Bezos, Zuckerberg, or Gates starts the next company in another jurisdiction with less of an appetite for taxation, drawing away with it the capital and all of the follow-on effects it provides (jobs, spending in the community, etc.). And given the lengths we know that rich people will go to protect their money, that line has to be drawn at far less than "all" to keep them.
On the other end of the extreme, even if he never sells a share those shares still allow him to wield a tremendous amount of power. So in the short run, all the taxes in the world would change nothing (Amazon does not pay dividends). It would just give him more time to figure out how to evade the taxes in the long run. :)
I am moved by the argument that Walton's kids shouldn't get it all, but I'm not sure that transferring some or all of his property to the government is a good idea. You would then just have a "trust fund class" of politicians and bureacrats! (BTW your Walton comment has got me pumped for season 3 of "Succession")
I like your overall thesis, I just think we should be less punitive with those exceptional people who do indeed add tremendous value to our economy and society.
Why shouldn't they exist? Are you really claiming that by accumulating certain amount of health you become harmful to society? If that is the case what would be that amount that you mention? $1,000,000,000 and what about $990,000,000?
The accumulation of wealth by a single individual is not inherently harmful for society, it all comes down to the intention for which accumulation happens and how is that spent.
Accumulation of wealth by a single individual is a very inefficient distribution of resources (from a maximizing utility perspective) due to the diminishing value of each additional $.
I don't think the accumulation is inefficient per se, it would depend on what the individual does with that wealth. Bezos or Musk invest that capital in productive enterprises, which arguably benefit society.
That's a very strong assumption to make. Because you are putting a limit on the capabilities of an individual and the cost of the problems and projects thet may work on.
Accumulation of wealth can never be analysed in its own vacuum, because it does not exist in a vacuum.
Present day accumulation of wealth creates a huge power imbalance, billionaires are citizens, just as I am, why should they have more power, as a citizen, than I do?
If you defend that billionaires should exist then, in my opinion, it's required to design a way to protect the rest of society from this class of people amassing more and more power.
The problem isn't money, it is our power structures. Right now, being a billionaire is almost inherently bad, every billionaire is a policy failure.
Why shouldn't billionaires have more power than you? I assume that you come from a western country, and presumably you work on Engineering or IT industry. Based on statistics we can easily assume that you belong to the 1% richest population of the world. Are you willing to give up on your wealth? If not, why should a billionaire then?
Besides that, hierarchies of power exist outside of realm of money. And they are a natural occurrence. You will not only find billionaires with more power than you, but also a lot of other citizens that belong to these other hierarchies that have achieved their power via their competence.
Power in itself is not dangerous or undesirable, power that becomes tyrannic is.
What is more dangerous is inequality, specially inequality of opportunities. Certainly some times of inequalities of outcome can also be dangerous in certain situations if not kept at check, basically because they may become a source of violence.
People shouldn't be allowed to be too tall either. No one deserves to be 6'3 when the average height is 5'7. The extralegal advantages that come with such height are considerable and worth correcting.
I think this is a fantastic analogy, except instead of 5'7 and 6'3 it's 5'7 and 50,000' tall. You bet society would start to have some pretty interesting laws if there were a bunch of people running around that were ten thousand times the size of the median person. It would be agreed that people of this size, while capable of incredible things, present a significant problem for the general population and they consume A LOT of resources. Certainly the population would prefer if they were only 1000 feet tall, after all, it's impossible to maintain perspective if your head is in the clouds, far from the median person.
That website rubs me the wrong way in so many ways - the premise of "what could we do with X% of $what_someone_who_is_not_me_owns" with no concern for the owner, and "no person deserves this much wealth" with no concern given to the very important question of: Who can judge what anyone "Deserves"?
They can keep their wealth because the rest of us protects it, often with our blood. (Military and police, for a start, but that’s just scratching the surface.)
Aside from the fact that Elon was born into a wealthy family (which is vaguely like having tall genes, I guess?), he can discard his massive wealth at any moment with considerable ease compared to the task of somehow reducing your height from 6'3" to 5'7". He actively chose to accumulate wealth and hold onto it, there are plenty of successful businessmen who aren't billionaires or aspiring billionaires.
Are you really going to pick height as a comparison point for being a billionaire? Did tall people take their height from short people? Is height taxed?
The great man theory is overrated, and this case in particular because many of Newton's discoveries would have been found by his compatriots anyway- Leibniz already invented calculus independently of Newton, Hooke had developed theories of gravity at the same time of Principia Mathematica as well. If not Bezos, you'd be thanking the Waltons or Sol Price. If not Musk, then Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning- the engineers who actually founded Tesla.
Actually they wouldn't have needed Bezos for that. Online shops have been a thing before Amazon existed, and even today Amazon is not the only online shop, it's just the first that comes to the minds of most people. Do you also thank the marketers that made "Kleenex" a common word for paper towels to wipe your nose when you have a cold? Given Amazon's theoretical inexistence, others would have undoubtedly filled that void instantly, just like if Kleenex never existed.
If anyone, thank Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the World Wide Web, without which none of the aforementioned online shops could exist. And last I checked he didn't become a mega-billionaire from that invention.
Organizing other people's labor isn't easy though. Have you ever tried to do it? It's very hard and very stressful. When governments have tried, they have tended to fail miserably. So why would anyone undertake this difficult and stressful task without a strong incentive to do so?
I agree in general that workers should get a bigger piece of the pie, but if entrepreneurs and executives aren't providing any value, then why aren't groups of workers getting together en masse and forming their own companies? It seems pretty clear that this "organizer" role is essential and can't be done by just anyone.
Is the reason Bezos gets up every morning because he thinks to himself, "man, if only I have $200 billion instead of my $145 billion"?
Let's be real: Bezos is not "organizing" Amazon so much as he organizes a cabinet of Executives who do the same recursively until some worker does the actual work.
> When governments have tried, they have tended to fail miserably
So the federal government, which must coordinate the efforts of over 2 million employees across a more broad spectrum of activities and labor than Amazon does, doesn't count?
And is the job so hard as to mean hundreds of billions? Or is that just want the market will pay to keep Bezos around? I could understand that part, as it means the market believes Bezos current activities are worth that much. But does that mean he deserves it? I should hardly think those arguments are the same.
"Let's be real: Bezos is not "organizing" Amazon so much as he organizes a cabinet of Executives who do the same recursively until some worker does the actual work."
Organizing a cabinet of executives (who then organize recursively down the hierarchy) is also very difficult and stressful, so I'm not sure what the point is here? Again, it seems clear that this role is necessary and important, otherwise we should see lots of big and successful companies running without CEOs or executives.
"So the federal government, which must coordinate the efforts of over 2 million employees across a more broad spectrum of activities and labor than Amazon does, doesn't count?"
While I don't think anyone would point to the US government as a model of efficiency and innovation, I'll grant that they do organize a lot of labor, but it primarily concerns the responsibilities of governing that we have specifically decided are special cases that the state should take care of (in spite of whatever inefficiencies it may cause). When states have tried to organize labor more generally, in order to do things like extract resources, grow food, build stuff in factories, set prices, etc., it has not gone well in most cases.
"And is the job so hard as to mean hundreds of billions? Or is that just want the market will pay to keep Bezos around? I could understand that part, as it means the market believes Bezos current activities are worth that much. But does that mean he deserves it? I should hardly think those arguments are the same."
What someone "deserves" is subjective. My point is just that it seems we do need to provide entrepreneurs and managers some kind of incentive if we want people to create and manage businesses, since doing so is hard work that requires unique skills. How strong that incentive should be is debatable, but if you have one, there will always be people who put way more energy into pursuing it than others, and so are much wealthier than others.
I recall the quote from Thoreau, saying we must also stand up to those "who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity."
The point of the essay is to exhibit disobedience to government when that government is perpetrating injustice. Somehow halting the production of luxury cars for a few more weeks, with the explicit intent of trying to save lives, doesn't seem like an injustice to me.
> Somehow halting the production of luxury cars for a few more weeks, with the explicit intent of trying to save lives, doesn't seem like an injustice to me.
Forgive the cliche, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Trying to save lives" is the new "think of the children". It's the same mentality that gives us legislation like the EARN IT act.
--
The question we should ask is, (1) has the government provided a reasonable justification for placing such limits on commerce, freedom of movement, etc. And (2), is the strategy we're pursuing, from a public health perspective, the right one?
My answer to both (1) and (2) is "hell no". The rules our government has ruled out are arbitrary and capricious and are largely based on superstition. Case in point: closures of public parks and beaches.
Arguing (2) is out of the scope of this comment but suffice to say that my belief is the negative externalities introduced by our COVID-19 response are far, far worse than COVID-19 itself.
--
FWIW, I am not a fan of Musk in general. I am inherently suspicious of people that are trying to save humanity. As we have seen with Musk - for example, how Tesla factory workers are treated in the pre-COVID-19 era - because he is working tirelessly to save humanity, he is willing to sacrifice actual humans to achieve his goals. Because after all, in the scheme of things, if you're talking about fighting existential threats like climate change or being stuck on one planet, what's the cost of even 100,000 human-lives' worth of wellbeing in comparison? It's not even close.
But when it comes to COVID-19, I absolutely think Musk is right. Yes he has made some absolute asinine comments/predictions but his general points about suspension of civil liberties, and statements that COVID-19 is not nearly as lethal as we were told...all of that is totally true in my book.
> "Trying to save lives" is the new "think of the children". It's the same mentality that gives us legislation like the EARN IT act.
Is not "but what about my freedom" the same thing? This is a nonsense argument.
> But when it comes to COVID-19, I absolutely think Musk is right. Yes he has made some absolute asinine comments/predictions but his general points about suspension of civil liberties, and statements that COVID-19 is not nearly as lethal as we were told...all of that is totally true in my book.
Forget the nonsense and call it for what it is. It has nothing to do with civil liberty. It has to do with money, power, and influence.
People actually suffering and not knowing where their next check comes from, well, we don't really care about them. But when finally the rich software engineers get a little less comfortable, the screeches for freedom would make even the largest eagle blush.
If it was about them then the federal government would provide aide so that a proper response can be undertaken.
I disagree. The rich people who can avoid the poor are the biggest proponents of opening up business. In fact, I see this sentiment on hacker news more than anywhere else- because software engineers are rich and benefit from the working poor everywhere, they want the economy to reopen so their portfolio grows again.
The federal government is providing aid and today discussed a 25 trillion dollar deal. That is more than all the mortgage, auto, and student loan debt combined.
The problem is that govt is slow and payments by themselves are not effective because of the cascading effects of economic shutdown (you cant spend money when services aren't running in the first place). It's the lower and middle class workers that are suffering the most without a paycheck.
Also, in case you missed it, the stock market has been on a rapid rise for a month now and the NASDAQ is currently positive for the year. Portfolios are doing just fine.
The federal government discusses a lot of things - the large majority of which never get passed. This is not an argument.
If the stock market is doing fine then perhaps we don't need to rush to reopen. Or maybe it's completely propped up based on nothing, countless measures of pumping money into industry, and monetary policy.
> (you cant spend money when services aren't running in the first place). It's the lower and middle class workers that are suffering the most without a paycheck.
Aide shouldn't be for spending money on Tesla's and other junk. It should be for rent, food, etc, utilities, etc. So this argument is pointless.
The poor and middle class have already been suffering for years - expensive healthcare, lower wages, less pensions, regressive taxes. Yet now people suddenly care? It's basically all a lie. Just admit it - you don't want to lose money for yourself, and you don't care if other people you don't know die or get sick or work in poor conditions.
The stock market is not the economy. Also you can't selectively choose to only open certain businesses because they're all connected. Tesla alone has thousands of vendors and suppliers affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I'm a startup founder who has lost major revenue. I personally know dozens who have lost their businesses and jobs and a few who have gotten sick. More aid is not going to make any difference and the economic disaster is going to cause much more suffering and death. Supporting family isn't free. These are known effects and must be balanced against the new data we have about covid19.
But now you're resorting to baseless accusations and personal attacks so let's end it here.
Phhft, some aid. The people get just crumbs under the table. In Europe, many countries pay 80% or more of furloughed salaries. This is how it’s done. (There is shenanigans there too, but less.) The cares act is joke.
In the US, the megacorps got theirs. Now the populace has to work. No tests, just work comrade. For Mother US!
People who oppose EARN-IT act did provide their reasons. I get it that you don’t believe their intentions. Do you have any plausible theories on this supposedly secret motives of Alameda county officials? You say it isn’t saving lives, so what do you think it is? What do they benefit from keeping a factory closed unnecessarily?
> supposedly secret motives of Alameda county officials?
This is an arbitrary goal post. There need not be any secret motive of the county officials to make their reasoning incorrect or the law not right. Their motives could be completely public and still scrutinized and found to be incorrect.
> You say it isn’t saving lives, so what do you think it is?
I think that they intend to save lives but that their understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the best way to address it is so overly simplistic that the myopic policies they are instituting are going to lead to larger mortality over the long-term. Which is the pattern we see at the broader scale as well when we examine the US' response to the pandemic.
So, like I implied above, their intentions are good, but intentions are largely worthless.
I'm responding to how this all aligns with Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience. Billionaires more interested in the expansion of their own business at the cost of the lives of their workers is the exact opposite of what Thoreau considers justice.
I recommend learning more about these ideas before building them into your narrative. You may realize, for example, that the people who have been working on COVID response full time for months have put a lot more thought into it than you.
It's not about good or bad. It's about power. Billionaires have a shitton of power, and we need rules to rein them in. To protect us from them.
That's in the abstract. Let's take this concrete example. Say there is some worker in this factory. They don't want to go to work. They don't feel safe. Now they are torn between two authorities. What happens if they do show up? What happens if they don't show up? Will they be seen as "not a teamplayer"? Will their career stall out compared to their yes-men colleges? Maybe even get fired without any cause given. Half a year later so as not to make it obvious?
> Let's take this concrete example. Say there is some worker in this factory. They don't want to go to work. They don't feel safe. Now they are torn between two authorities. What happens if they do show up? What happens if they don't show up? Will they be seen as "not a teamplayer"? Will their career stall out compared to their yes-men colleges? Maybe even get fired without any cause given. Half a year later so as not to make it obvious?
Yes, I think pretty much exactly that would happen. (I'm not super up-to-date on the CARES act or other legal measures that they might be able to take, or if unemployment pays out to people who "quit" their jobs currently, so there's a small chance that those are options)
However my conclusion is that's an example of why forcibly shutting down businesses was a terrible idea in the first place and never should have been done.
But yes I totally agree, our governmental systems are not set up to handle these questions.
I must confess that when the "flatten the curve" meme started spreading around and the initial 4-5% case fatality rate and 20% hospitalization rate numbers were being given, that I actually believed in flattening the curve and thus initially supported the lockdown. I should have known at the time that the goalposts were going to be moved. In retrospect it's incredibly obvious.
I think a lot of people are starting to wake up to the threats of “new normal” and how damaging the response has been and continues to be.
The math didn’t check out on “Flatten the Curve” from the very start. It is very, very hard not to get caught up in the panic response, and in that moment the sheer number of people who would accuse you of endangering lives for even doubting the response was necessary, correct, proportional, scientific, or even legal, was enormous.
In MA ~60% of COVID deaths have been in nursing homes. That’s 3,000 deaths in an extremely narrow population (< 50,000 people) and the state was busy shutting down life as we know it and totally failed the people actually at risk. In NY they sent known COVID cases into their nursing homes. In RI 70% of their total fatalities have been in nursing homes.
We need the end of lockdown, we need to halt the drift into totalitarian and draconian tracking measures, and we need strictly targeted and laser focused protections for the at-risk population.
As far as TFA, it’s the typical Elon lightning rod effect but the fact is all the other auto manufacturers have reopened, and Alameda County is no hotspot. It should be entirely uncontroversial that Tesla is reopening and in the meantime challenging any continuing shutdown order in court. I doubt a preliminary injunction would be granted based on the required legal standard, although judges have surprised me in the past!
>we need strictly targeted and laser focused protections for the at-risk population
Exactly. And if we had been prepared with enough testing capability and protective equipment, that would have been the way to go. But we were not prepared. So we had to go with plan B. The US is not good at health care. There are consequences for that.
You realize that even if the lockdown ended tomorrow, that doesn't change the fact that the economic effects are still going to exist from other countries suffering from Coronavirus related issues, yes?
The rallying cry around ending the lockdown is complete and utter bullshit considering other countries that have tried reopening (including South Korea and parts of Japan) were slammed by a second wave of infections.
Opening up won't stop the at-risk population from being afraid to work, nor will it stop people from getting sick and being unable to work.
Economic effects are still going to exist. This is a tautology. What matters is the change or trade-offs in effect from taking one course of action or another.
We have over 20 million unemployed (probably a significant undercount) through a self-inflicted lockdown in just a couple months. Leading economic experts such as the US Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman of the Federal Reserve have warned strongly of “permanent economic damage” if we continue the lockdown. I would speculate this lockdown is firmly ushering in the next era of “essential” mega corporations and the utter destruction of small business.
And in New York, the majority of new cases in the last few weeks have been from people “strictly observing social distancing.”
Like focusing a laser increases the energy that can be brought to bear on a single point and magnifies the overall effect, so too can highly targeted common sense measures save more lives than this “utter bullshit” general lockdown.
I’ll give the specific example again. While we’re doing ~30k tests a day nationwide, we still haven’t tested every nursing home patient and worker. In fact, NY Times reports many nursing homes have not gotten access to barely any testing at all, even for their recently deceased. So a sub-population of 1.3 million residents is bearing 35% of total fatalities (in 14 states it’s more than 50% of all fatalities) and this lockdown diverts massive resources and energy away from saving those lives.
Do I have that right? 0.4% of the population has seen 35% of the total deaths? Over-represented by 87x. By the way that’s an undercount because only 33 states actually break out data for nursing home deaths. But instead the political response is fear mongering, preaching a new normal, and shaming people who go to the beach.
> the initial 4-5% case fatality rate and 20% hospitalization rate numbers
Those are the current stats I believe. The IFR is of course lower, but probably not wildly lower. As of yesterday the UK's chief medical officer was estimating it at 1% or a bit less.
Billionaires are citizens too. They are bound (imperfectly) by laws. Therefore they too encounter situations where practicing civil disobedience makes sense.