I don't agree. They didn't get rich by creating value. They might have created value, but they got rich by keeping that value to themselves.
I would also argue that they don't create the value themselves, but their workers do.
Just like that joke: a worker is admiring the boss's Ferrari, and the boss tells him "if you continue working hard, next year I'll have 2"
> They didn't get rich by creating value. They might have created value…
Odd to contradict yourself with only a period separating the contradictory statements.
> I would also argue that they don't create the value themselves, but their workers do.
Sure, that’s fair - but those workers also have jobs and salaries because of risk the founders took to de-risk the company before the employees joined.
The level of risk required is not everyone’s cup of tea.
why pretend to have found a contradiction when a stronger reading of the comment is clearly that it meant to highlight the distinction between the creation of that value and its consolidation primarily into an individual's personal wealth?
Because it is paradoxical on its face. Many people like to argue that founders (or rich people, or billionaires, or whatever) don’t create real value, but simultaneously discount all the jobs they created and products they produced, because it is convenient to do so when it fits your narrative.
Yes, I’m all for co-op structures, but there is a big difference between “created no value” and “created lots of value but kept the majority of profits for themselves.”
If they’ve created 1000 jobs; is that value? Surely to those 1000 employed people, it is.
Yes these numbers are peanuts compared to the Rothschilds and Saudis of the world. But the question was about self-made billionaires, which I believe everyone on that list is.
