This is how it should be if we had a scarce money supply (e.g. gold-backed). If it was truly people handing out their own hard-earned money, then it would be great and we would know they TRULY deserved it.
With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive.
Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets.
If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy.
There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately.
When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.
If you don't think there was wealth inequity under the gold standard then I recommend opening a history book ...
This also isn't something that all billionaires and multi-millionaries can do. This was splitting 15% of the proceeds from a sale; like how often do the Walmart heir sell Walmart?
That said, yeah I don't like the idea of charity dictating how well people do. If you think there's some minimum standard for people then legislate it ...
Personally, I've been feeling the pain of this kind of 'giving.'
I've seen people get handed out huge opportunities, big bonuses despite objective incompetence! Meanwhile I was highly competent and never once received a raise or Christmas bonus. I got the opposite of help. Anything I ever got, which isn't much, I had to force as far as the law and ethics allowed me.
It seems like the entire system is working against me. What do I have to do to get EQUAL treatment?
I would vote for communism, any opportunity I get because I don't even care about equality of opportunities anymore. That was a luxurious idea. If I could get just equality of outcomes, I wouldn't even mind that I worked 10x as hard. I literally would vote for anything that even remotely resembles justice.
It's interesting because I used to think people who supported communism were confused. Now I'm thinking that, probably, they were entirely rational. It's an entirely rational and predictable response to system dysfunction.
I appreciate when a view opens up a different perspective and yours does. Nevertheless, if we lift the surface layer and have a look at the dark economy, do you think we’re find a less nepotistic economy, or one with less ruthless hierarchical structures in which luck is less of a factor?
Under a gold backed economy, things are zero-sum. Under a fiat based economy, they aren't. If your concern is about the problems of a zero-sum system, you should support a lack of scarcity in the money supply.
This is a common trope around "poor people are poor because they aren't capable of being rich". If the rich can make the poor believe wealth inequality is natural and fair then lots of things go more smoothly.
You’re correct that belief is a powerful driver of prosperity/poverty - and that believing that you’re headed for either can lead to you to different modes of decision making. I’ve experienced and witnessed both.
An unexpected windfall will amplify the psychology of the recipients. For people who have lived without, the mindset is frequently “live today like it’s your last” or “enjoy it while it lasts” and blow it or self destruct.
Some will be obviously be more mature about it though.
Eh, touch some grass buddy. You're interpretting a lot of negativity from the poster despite having no evidence to support it.
> [1] A famous study in 2010 from the Review of Economics and Statistics revealed that, out of 35,000 lottery winners who obtained between $50,000 and $150,000 in winnings, 1,900 of them had filed for bankruptcy within 5 years.
> A 2015 paper in The American Economic Review also presented that 15% of NFL players filed for bankruptcy after 12 years of retirement.
It's really common for people with sudden windfalls to lose it all.
Does it matter? It's their money, and they have needs and wants.
The difference with multi-millionaires and billionaires is that they can cover they wants and even mere whims, and the whole system gives them opportunities to keep and multiply their money.
This is how it should be if we had a scarce money supply (e.g. gold-backed). If it was truly people handing out their own hard-earned money, then it would be great and we would know they TRULY deserved it.
With an infinite (fiat) money supply, where money flows are controlled by algorithms, it's a disaster. $400k is a HUGE amount of money for most people. Giving that much money to 400 people is disruptive.
Someone with $400k worth of assets has a MUCH easier life than someone with less than $50k assets.
If all billionaires and multi-millionaires did this, we'd end up in an extremely unjust society where two sets of people would work equally hard and because of random algorithm-based selection, one set of people would be millionaires and the other set would be essentially homeless. It's a recipe for disaster.
It just multiplies the injustice of the current system. Be prepared for more hacking, more fraud, more theft, more drug trafficking... People who aren't getting the lucky treatment will have to survive somehow in this lottery economy.
There's been a trend now that keeps getting worse; as the mainstream economy becomes increasingly unmeritocratic, the shadow economy becomes increasingly meritocratic; the 'bad' guys feel increasingly justified, increasingly skilled, increasingly ruthless, increasingly good at avoiding consequences. You need to be really skilled to succeed in the dark economy. In the mainstream economy, you just need to be lucky. That's the message unfortunately.
When you help some people in this zero-sum system, it's always at the expense of other people who are out of view.
If you don't think there was wealth inequity under the gold standard then I recommend opening a history book ...
This also isn't something that all billionaires and multi-millionaries can do. This was splitting 15% of the proceeds from a sale; like how often do the Walmart heir sell Walmart?
That said, yeah I don't like the idea of charity dictating how well people do. If you think there's some minimum standard for people then legislate it ...
Personally, I've been feeling the pain of this kind of 'giving.'
I've seen people get handed out huge opportunities, big bonuses despite objective incompetence! Meanwhile I was highly competent and never once received a raise or Christmas bonus. I got the opposite of help. Anything I ever got, which isn't much, I had to force as far as the law and ethics allowed me.
It seems like the entire system is working against me. What do I have to do to get EQUAL treatment?
I would vote for communism, any opportunity I get because I don't even care about equality of opportunities anymore. That was a luxurious idea. If I could get just equality of outcomes, I wouldn't even mind that I worked 10x as hard. I literally would vote for anything that even remotely resembles justice.
It's interesting because I used to think people who supported communism were confused. Now I'm thinking that, probably, they were entirely rational. It's an entirely rational and predictable response to system dysfunction.
I appreciate when a view opens up a different perspective and yours does. Nevertheless, if we lift the surface layer and have a look at the dark economy, do you think we’re find a less nepotistic economy, or one with less ruthless hierarchical structures in which luck is less of a factor?
Under a gold backed economy, things are zero-sum. Under a fiat based economy, they aren't. If your concern is about the problems of a zero-sum system, you should support a lack of scarcity in the money supply.
To be paid out over five years. A great retention bonus too for the new owner.
So $87k/year per employee? Sorry I can’t actually read the OP it keeps crashing my browser.
It's $240M total for all >550, to make the title less clickbaity.
Better article:
https://www.wsj.com/business/fibrebond-eaton-bonus-walker-30...
https://archive.ph/NpY8i
The ultimate "trust me bro".
> Potential buyers and others warned against the idea.
> ... [the] Walkers froze salaries for several years amid the difficulties.
> [the CEO] wanted to do something good. He also worried about going to a local grocery store and feeling ashamed he hadn’t shared his windfall.
Will be interesting to see how many of them have money left after 5 years
This seems really cynical. Did you mean it that way?
This is a common trope around "poor people are poor because they aren't capable of being rich". If the rich can make the poor believe wealth inequality is natural and fair then lots of things go more smoothly.
You’re correct that belief is a powerful driver of prosperity/poverty - and that believing that you’re headed for either can lead to you to different modes of decision making. I’ve experienced and witnessed both.
An unexpected windfall will amplify the psychology of the recipients. For people who have lived without, the mindset is frequently “live today like it’s your last” or “enjoy it while it lasts” and blow it or self destruct.
Some will be obviously be more mature about it though.
Eh, touch some grass buddy. You're interpretting a lot of negativity from the poster despite having no evidence to support it.
> [1] A famous study in 2010 from the Review of Economics and Statistics revealed that, out of 35,000 lottery winners who obtained between $50,000 and $150,000 in winnings, 1,900 of them had filed for bankruptcy within 5 years.
> A 2015 paper in The American Economic Review also presented that 15% of NFL players filed for bankruptcy after 12 years of retirement.
It's really common for people with sudden windfalls to lose it all.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_wealth_syndrome#Effects...
Does it matter? It's their money, and they have needs and wants.
The difference with multi-millionaires and billionaires is that they can cover they wants and even mere whims, and the whole system gives them opportunities to keep and multiply their money.