News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth: Ingrid Ro... by Jensson on Saturday February 03, 2024 @06:54AM (#39239492)
If you pay someone to do X, and then stop paying them they will stop doing X even if they enjoyed it. The same will be true for these leaders, you can't just take all their future wealth and expect them to continue, they will stop the instant they stop making money, just like any other person.
Re:Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth: Ingrid Ro... by alkonaut on Saturday February 03, 2024 @09:44AM (#39240771)
> If you pay someone to do X, and then stop paying them they will stop doing X even if they enjoyed it

That's because for 99.999% of people, being paid money has utility. So the payment provides some benefit for them. But for someone with $2B, my argument is precisely this: whatever it is that drove them to make $2B (inveting the best product, or whatever) is NOT what drives them to make the NEXT $1B.

> you can't just take all their future wealth and expect them to continue > they will stop the instant they stop making money, just like any other person.

You cabsolutely can, and they absoluteluy will not.

That's the whole point again: assuming a high enough "cap", we are talking about people who will never not be extremely wealthy. Whether the cap is $100M; $1B or $10B can be argued, but the central point is that the utility of more wealth is diminishing. That's why me giving you $1B would make a massive difference, but then me giving you another $1B would make almost no difference to your lifestyle/happniess/whatever measure you choose.