I'm curious about this one. Most of what I've read indicates that modern American wealth was largely circumstantial due to european economies being obliterated during WW2. Do you have a source for how much slavery affected American wealth?
Different systems produce different results. It tends to be the case that when you drastically alter the fundamental properties of a system, you won’t get the same results - because it isn’t the same system.
If you want a system where a company is not the property of its shareholders, and you fail to observe that all current implementations of that idea have never demonstrated a single instance of producing Google-like companies since the industrial revolution, your ideas are not going to be very robust.
If you don’t want that, sure, this is a perfectly valid position. But you are not to be taken seriously if you make these claims while earning 7 figures at Google. You haven’t even demonstrated that your ideas are viable to you, let alone all of society.
And since the principles of capitalism apparently quite unironically elude you, yes, they expect their own bank account to be padded more than yours (as it must, game theory prevents the transaction otherwise), which is why they fired her.
And the conditions that make Google better for them were not created exclusively by employees and especially not by employees who didn’t share the mission. Nor were they created and sustained without leadership. Nor were they created without venture capital. If you cherry pick certain properties of Google and expect to be reproduce those results, you aren’t making payroll. It is only through the right balance of incentives that such a system can function at all.
Yes, but you claim to know changing which set of variables, by which amount, produced what result, while you don't actually know that. Your epistemology is emotional rather than rational.
> and you fail to observe that all current implementations of that idea have never demonstrated a single instance of producing Google-like companies since the industrial revolution, your ideas are not going to be very robust.
Not that I think Google is a great company (it's a pretty lousy one, all things considered) but it is unique, and still you don't know precisely what combination of variables unique to the US produced this particular result.
> which is why they fired her.
That's fine, but you blamed them for being sort of victims in the first place.
> And the conditions that make Google better for them were not created exclusively by employees and especially not by employees who didn’t share the mission.
I never said that.
> It is only through the right balance of incentives that such a system can function at all.
Sure, but there can be more than one right balance, and you don't know all of them. You make the mistake of thinking that if the current situation is X and you think X is good, then any other balance Y is likely worse than X.
That's a non-sequitur. There are many things that make America, and every other country, unique. Maybe America produced Google because it's the only country with that population size that's made up virtually entirely of immigrants?
It's also an is-ought fallacy. America is also the only rich country that's built that much of its wealth on slave labour, so does that mean slave labour is a good thing?
> let their ridiculously permissive (and coddling) employer pad their bank account
As a reminder, just in case the principles of capitalism, quite ironically, elude you, the company hires employees it expects will pad its own bank account more than it pads theirs.
> Not once they realize how everyone else lives.
It is certainly true that the conditions of most Google employees are much better than those of the rest of the world, but they are so because the company's employees created that wealth.