I have to disagree. This argument comes up in every discussion about wealth inequality. 'The non-wealthy can't complain, because everything is so cheap now.'

Real wealth is, you know... actual wealth. It's being able to start a high 6-figure to 8-figure business (or even smaller if you are satisfied) and not being laughed at as a failure. It's being able to buy rather than rent everything you want to buy. It's having productive assets.

> It's being able to start a high 6-figure to 8-figure business (or even smaller if you are satisfied) and not being laughed at as a failure.

I suspect this is a bit of a SV bubble viewpoint. I don't think that in the general population, if you tell people you are pulling 8-figures in your business, you would be considered a failure.

Yep, sounds like someone who spends way too much time on forums. Do they even have a 6-figure business that's literally getting laughed at? And was that "laughter" more than maybe an internet comment, at most? Starts to sound more like superstition.

>> It's being able to buy rather than rent everything you want to buy. It's having productive assets.

If by "productive assets" you mean income/revenue producing, then I'm not sure we can all have that. Many assets like that require some else to pay rent.

People can now buy a haedset for 400$, rather than 100000$. That creates wealth.

That you personally care more about starting a business than about using a VR headset is not really relevant.

It creates purchasing power only in VR, but that is not the same thing as wealth. I think it's important to keep that distinction. Wealth is more directly connected to financial stability than the price of specific technology products.

I don't think you have a proper concept of "wealth".

I appreciate that. Economy of scale makes it possible for really amazing products, concentrating the efforts of many, to be spread far and wide. That is a great thing, but there are very serious negatives that come along with that incentive to scale when it's not tempered. Hegemonic industries disproportionately empower owners over workers and limit opportunity, competition, and diversity to the point where the "best" products can shove anti-consumer features down people's throats. You get unsteerable inertia.

It's not cut-and-dry bad the way we do things, but there is a lack of balance. There's a lot wrong that could be better if it wasn't someone's perverse bread and butter. Extreme wealth and power inequality, whether for people or companies, don't make for a just, healthy society.

I appreciate your concerns, but I think they are mostly propaganda. Without the industries, there would be no jobs and no workers that could be deprived of their power.

If you want to strengthen workers, create more demand for jobs, so that workers have options. By for example creating a successful VR industry, you create demand for more jobs that haven't previously existed, thereby empowering workers. Somebody who has previously been exploited to manufacture fridges can now give their boss the finger and go manufacture chips for VR headsets instead. One easy way to create more jobs is to hire a cleaning person, by the way. Everybody who is concerned about "living wages" and things like that should start by hiring cleaners and possibly gardeners for their homes.

I personally think the whole concept of "workers" is bunk. Everybody is a free agent entering contracts with other market participants. That's it. "Worker" is a social construct, actually, a socialist construct. More so, being a "worker" does not sound like a very desirable state of affairs, so I think society should work towards getting rid of workers.