Part of it is work, yes. But consider. How much is your take home as a fund manager with 100M AUM? How much is your take home with 10B AUM? The work is the same, yet if the take home is different, you've proven that your income is not in fact earned through work in a moral sense.

> The work is the same, yet if the take home is different, you've proven that your income is not in fact earned through work in a moral sense.

You could say the same about musicians and authors. Are they immoral as well?

Yes, the same is absolutely true for many other professions. And artists are probably more aware than most, at least on average, how much luck plays a role.

But note that I have been very careful not to call the fund managers individually immoral.

I fail to see the moral problem with being able to write a book that millions or even billions of people can enjoy. To me that's a feature, not a bug.

Work on your reading comprehension. The comment you're replying to specifically said they were not impugning the morality of artists or fund managers.

Making great art is wonderful, but it's certainly not "work" the same way that digging a ditch or answering tech support calls is.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. [1]

I was talking specifically about the moral implications of books that can be read without any additional work from the author. This statement is about books, not authors.

> but it's certainly not "work" the same way that digging a ditch

I don't think so. Value comes from utility, not from toil.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's nice to be nice. The strongest possible interpretation of your comment is that you're simply noting accurately that there is no moral failure in writing a great novel.

I agree, writing great novels is a wonderful thing and a moral positive.

Of course that is a feature, but at this point I have to suspect that you're willfully ignoring the point.

The moral problems begin when writing that book gives you extraordinary power beyond what is healthy for society (which is extremely rare for authors, of course; the discussion isn't really about authors, you just invoked them in an attempt to conjure a moral shield for the people who are the real problem).

And again, even that in itself is still not a moral failing of the individual. It's primarily a failure of the system in which the individual operates.

It does become a moral failing of the individual if the individual uses that power to perpetuate the system.

>Are those excess returns not work? What are they?

Normally you'd get a low percentage fee instead of getting all of the returns unless you got that capital for free (inheritance?), so yes, you are a worker compared to the person controlling the capital.

> Are those excess returns not work? What are they?

Wealth extracted from a market, which is what the parent commenter said in the first place

What do you mean “extracted”? The wealth is sitting there in his 401(k) being risked through (highly) fractional ownership of various publicly traded business ventures.

I mean "not earned through work", as evidenced by your description of it "as as sitting there". Risk isn't the same as work.

What is being “extracted” from what?

I described it as “sitting there” to contrast my viewpoint that in fact it’s not being “extracted” from anything as far as I can tell.

Some Nvidia employees are making graphics cards, that cost $1000, and use $300 of materials, and being paid $200. $500 is being extracted from the value chain at that point and some of that is going to you because you own Nvidia stock.

Ah, the labor theory of value. That makes sense.

It’s totally incoherent and unreliable as an explanation for an economy, but it explains the comments in this thread.

Did you reply to the wrong comment by mistake?

What would that $500 not being “extracted from the value chain” look like?

It would either be passed along the chain or it would not enter the chain.

Seriously, what does “passed along the chain” look like in your example?

Given to the people who create the value.

How is that distinct from the labor theory of value? In your model, who’s creating the value other than the labor?

A GPU is worth $10k. When someone brings a GPU into existence it creates $10k of value. What is needed to bring a GPU into existence?

Well, for one thing, billions of dollars of capital!

Do you think “work” means literally “manual labor”?

Work means the creation of things. Clicking on stocks for your 401k is not working.

The counter-examples are so obvious it makes me feel that pointing them out wouldn’t actually help you understand reality

The counter-examples are so obvious you didn't feel the need to cite even one?

Please provide an example of how logging in to fidelity.com to see that today my net worth increased by a multiple of my annual salary constitutes "work". Define your terms so it's clear to readers.

If I spend 30 minutes this week looking at my investments, but a fund manager spends 60 hours, that’s a difference in quality and quantity not kind.

Fund managers are paid to do a job by the owners of capital. Obviously that job is is work. The overwhelming majority of the gains accrue to the owners, and only a small fraction to the diligent fund manager who did the work.

Are you sure you tried to come up with a counter example?

Now you’re just question-begging.

If the only kind of “work” is “selling your labor” then sure, but I think a farmer tilling his own soil is “working”.

Work implies the creation of value: physical artifacts, services, or more generally, stuff that adds to the world. Capital gails isn't work, you're getting money without adding anything to the world.

Are you good at picking stocks, or just lucky? How do you know?

Say, for example, my job is allocating capital across the roulette wheel. My work is picking the numbers, the fruits of my labour are excess returns.

Are those returns not work? What are they?

Say I dig a hole and then fill it back in and dig a hole and fill it back in and make a mud pie then throw it on the ground and then a stranger gives me $100. Is that work?

You did something difficult and ultimately futile in exchange for money? Sounds like work to me.

Winnings.