
“To My Fellow Filthy Rich Americans: The Pitchforks Are Coming” - paulpauper
http://www.anonews.co/ultra-rich-mans-letter/
======
sharemywin
seems like prisoners dilemma. if all businesses pay workers better the
business does better and society benefits. if a lot of businesses don't invest
in workers society isn't as well off. but all businesses need to act or the
cheaters prospers.

~~~
mimo777
Businesses would pay workers better if there were less artificial barriers to
hiring--employer mandate--and more competition for resources--limiting H1B
abuse. Of course, this is only up to a point where it is economically viable
to remain a going concern.

------
mimo777
Give the plebs cake so that they ignore our regulatory capture and rent
seeking. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Yes, to a certain
extent, the success this article speaks of can be attributed to being in the
right place at the right time with the correct amount of resources _and_ the
propensity--and tolerance--for risk and the tenacity to work hard and smart on
a goal. Often times, when approaching entrepreneurs, the last two are
emphasized and the former are dismissed. Timing is something that can not be
equalized. Its just a fact of reality.

What can be equalized is the knowledge to be able to take advantage of a
situation when it presents itself. This is not taught in school. This is often
passed from parent to child, mentor to protege. Tenacity and risk taking are
likely inherited so they cannot be equalized.

Of course, a proper definition of Risk would be barren or a non sequitur
without the understanding that having basic needs met or having a fall back
position certainly separates the wild eyed failed Willy Lomans from the
perceived rational but radical successes like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
Certainly they took risks. Certainly they broke rules. What they did not have
was thousands of dollars in student debt and unstable housing situations that
would cause them to fail completely if a venture failed to pan out.

Even re-visiting the simple regulatory capture of zoning would begin to
alleviate this. If you needn't spend 750 thousand dollars to be close to the
source of funding required to grow a business and need not have expensive
audits and permitting to begin to manufacture a product to test a market, you
would be in a better position to fall back upon failing to seek funding or
gaining market penetration.

The worst offender in the arena of regulatory capture is overly broad Work For
Hire agreements and baroque and costly Patenting regulation. If you do not
have the ability to explore your own ideas when not performing work related to
your primary source of income, you do not have the ability to risk creating a
new intellectual property asset. Given that in many jurisdictions, you cannot
live in a car or on the street and make use of public facilities such as
libraries to do your work, you need a primary income in order to engage in
such activities--unless you already have been provided one by parents or
benefactor. Even further exasperating this issue is that once you have an
asset that prima facie is not relevant to the work performed at your primary
source of support, you need additional funds to risk to obtain assistance
navigating the complex legal process of patenting and defending your assertion
that the asset does not fall under the scope of a work for hire agreement--
which may be implicit depending on the jurisdiction.

Come back to me when you fix these issues; not hand outs to people who have
not. When anyone can pursue their ideas independent of the regulatory
structure and overbearing presence of aggressive patenting, zoning or access
limitation, aggressive employer enforcement of WFH either explicit or
implicit, and overly burdensome regulatory barriers to competition, then you
can tell me that the free market isn't working and we need to rely on transfer
payments.

