Self-made billionaire?!

[THE Bigzoman]

You couldn't think of a good counter argument so you just resort to petty insults?

Says the person insinuating that self made billionaries are immoral.

[Mormolyce]

"Self made" just means you weren't born rich.

Of course a lot of the hereditary wealthy like to cosplay as "self-made men" as well.

They had to move from Ireland to the US to become successful, interesting.

Bigger market, duh.

MMO-C, where successful people are scum and all the down trodden baristas with liberal arts degrees are the salt of the Earth.

You really want to see the ideological flip side of who the "salt of the earth" is?

What's with the barista prejudice anyway?

[Zmaniac17]

I used to work for this company, manufacturing products for them. was i contributing to success? to a degree. but the difference is - my contribution was replaceable while that of the person who created the company and designed the product? was not. when I was fired and another person hired in my place? the company didn't go under. when that company was just starting out - the only manufacturer was also the designer of said product, all that happened was that demand outstripped their ability to manufacture so they hired people - giving people jobs in a process.

Large publicly owned companies do not operate like this. While what you said is technically true of most startups it's not true for established companies. If you had played a role in the startup of the company your contribution would have been more significant due to the smaller size of the operation. My guess is that you did not join a startup at it's early stages and were instead working at an already established company.

Losing your accountant when your company is 2 people in a garage can end your business. Losing your accountant when you have 1000 employees and an established revenue simply means you're going to hire another. This is a question of scale.

Aren't the big streamers and some big youtubers 100% self-made millionaires with little help?

- - - Updated - - -

In the sense that someone who buys a winning lotto ticket is.

Most of the first generation of youtube gaming millionaires fluked it. Pewdiepie et al capitalized on a change in youtube's system which rewarded watch time over views, as he was pumping out content fast, because you can do that with video games if you don't edit your content much. Which would have been really clever had those people known what they were doing-but they didn't and have never pretended they did. People like Tobscus got put on the front page at a time when that would get you millions of subs-it was very arbitary.

The current generation of success stories is more deserving, visibly. People like Philip De Franco and Casey Neistat are clearly intelligent and hardworking, and innovate in some ways. However, it is still a gamble. People's channels get taken down for random reasons, copyright is a nightmare, demonetization is crushing a lot of previously successful youtubers. You can do everything right and still end up with nothing-I've seen great channels destroyed without making any obvious mistakes.

I would also point out that Youtube is a billion dollar company owned by Google. If you consider that it's far from self made. They are essentially Youtube employees who work semi freelance.

[Deleted]

Says the person insinuating that self made billionaries are immoral.

Egad!



.........

[Elba]

Billionaires, or even millionaires, shouldn't exist. The money should be sued for the betterment of society.

[Deleted]

Billionaires, or even millionaires, shouldn't exist. The money should be sued for the betterment of society.

I'd put it slightly different: people should be paid according to the value of their labour.

It isn't really possible to justify paying any one more than a million dollars in salary because when you measure their performance statistically most businessman individually make little difference. This includes "celebrated" entrepeneurs and CEO's.

Of course people are quite stupid and consistently overvalue the contribution of "star names".

[Tabrotar]

Just because some communist textbook might have a similar argument automatically invalidates it? By that logic sky is actually red because some communist once said it's blue. But then again, you're probably that kind of guy who thinks everyone to the left of Hillary is a communist...

If I make my boss ten bucks for working and he gives me five, he is directly getting rich from my work. Same with rental properties: I own a home and rent it to someone and they pay me money while I'm doing very little for that, other than owning the home. It doesn't matter if it's voluntary, justified or whatever, the fact is that if you own real estate you rent away or own shares in any kind of company, you're getting rich off of someone else's work and therefore did not earn that money by yourself.

- - - Updated - - -



How is being opposed to anti-competitive and predatory business practices jealousy?

Jesus, I'm probably jealous of Kim Jong-Un because I criticise his regime, right?

Don´t worry almost all poster who say this shit are from murica and as we all know company are GOD there and saying anything bad about them is heresy so ofc you will get this kind of post.

The good thing is you just can ignore them because in their little brain there´s no room for critical thinking.

[Elba]

I'd put it slightly different: people should be paid according to the value of their labour.

It isn't really possible to justify paying any one more than a million dollars in salary because when you measure their performance statistically most businessman individually make little difference. This includes "celebrated" entrepeneurs and CEO's.

Of course people are quite stupid and consistently overvalue the contribution of "star names".

The only solution is gulag.

[Witchblade77]

Large publicly owned companies do not operate like this. While what you said is technically true of most startups it's not true for established companies. If you had played a role in the startup of the company your contribution would have been more significant due to the smaller size of the operation. My guess is that you did not join a startup at it's early stages and were instead working at an already established company.

Losing your accountant when your company is 2 people in a garage can end your business. Losing your accountant when you have 1000 employees and an established revenue simply means you're going to hire another. This is a question of scale.




- - - Updated - - -



I would also point out that Youtube is a billion dollar company owned by Google. If you consider that it's far from self made. They are essentially Youtube employees who work semi freelance.

the company I worked for had 5 people total. including the owner who worked right alongside us - at the time that I joined it it was only.. 2 years old? don't remember exact age, but it was still at the stage where it didn't run itself like many of the larger corporations do. while losing a person for a small company might have a larger impact than for a large one, that one person is still replaceable. brains behind the operation? is NOT.

and while yes, no man is an island, taking example of someone knowing when to delegate, how to hire the right people for the job and how to utilize resources available to them and claiming that it means they are not self made - is a height of jealousy driven semantics. those youtubers? youtube may have provided the platform but they didn't tell those youtubers what content to create. it didn't give them the script. all it gave them was space. an equivalent of a landlord renting out a building to a business. entering into a symbiotic partnership, knowing when and with whom to do so - is part of being self-made.

[gaymer77]

Why would anyone consider themselves a self-made billionaire? Why would others consider anyone a self-made billionaire?

He's not like Trump who was given a million dollars by his daddy when he was young all those decades ago and told to go out & make something of himself. Funny fact is Trump would be richer than he is now had he invested it instead of trying to be a business mogul.

- - - Updated - - -

And he's actually pretty damn cute too. I wonder if he's gay & single & looking for a big teddy bear daddy type lol

[Zmaniac17]

the company I worked for had 5 people total. including the owner who worked right alongside us - at the time that I joined it it was only.. 2 years old? don't remember exact age, but it was still at the stage where it didn't run itself like many of the larger corporations do. while losing a person for a small company might have a larger impact than for a large one, that one person is still replaceable. brains behind the operation? is NOT.

and while yes, no man is an island, taking example of someone knowing when to delegate, how to hire the right people for the job and how to utilize resources available to them and claiming that it means they are not self made - is a height of jealousy driven semantics. those youtubers? youtube may have provided the platform but they didn't tell those youtubers what content to create. it didn't give them the script. all it gave them was space. an equivalent of a landlord renting out a building to a business. entering into a symbiotic partnership, knowing when and with whom to do so - is part of being self-made.

I agree with you. But the argument that only some people are replaceable is flawed. Everyone is replaceable. It just depends on the situation. I'll use the Youtubers as an example. At anytime there are literally ̶h̶u̶n̶d̶r̶e̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶s̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ millions? of content creators competing to produce the best content. The same can be said for inventors, CEO's and business owners. They are all replaceable. People in general are very replaceable. There are 7 billion of us.

[Daelak]

"Wouldn't all the ideas from others that you used to implement your idea"

You mean like the idea of your post came from the Obama speech, "You didn't build that"?


I didn't agree with him then and I don't agree with your "borrowed" concept of what his speech implied.

But that isn't an opinion, it's observable reality. Without the concerted, centuries-long investment in our society by both the government entities, court precedent, and private interests, their fortunes would not exist. Without the system, they don't have anything.

[Zmaniac17]

But that isn't an opinion, it's observable reality. Without the concerted, centuries-long investment in our society by both the government entities, court precedent, and private interests, their fortunes would not exist. Without the system, they don't have anything.

They have digits on a hard drive somewhere that say $1,000,000,000. And some pieces of paper in their pockets. It's interesting there is some legitimate advantage to making the world believe you are rich. Just look at Donald Trump. If bank CEO's pick up the phone when you call you're never going to be poor.

[Daelak]

They have digits on a hard drive somewhere that say $1,000,000,000. And some pieces of paper in their pockets.

Basically yes. Bill Gates and other billionaires assets are their stock, not cash, but pretty liquid. Trump's supposed fortune is based off of his CPA's value judgement of his brand, not of actual real estate valuations or equities. Among other reasons, he isn't even a billionaire.

[d00mGuArD]

I'd put it slightly different: people should be paid according to the value of their labour.

It isn't really possible to justify paying any one more than a million dollars in salary because when you measure their performance statistically most businessman individually make little difference. This includes "celebrated" entrepeneurs and CEO's.

Of course people are quite stupid and consistently overvalue the contribution of "star names".

In a free market, we, the buyers determine the worth of the items (by deciding to buy it or not)
A guy works in a carpentry store for 1 month and makes a great imba table. People see the table and are wow! I would pay 3000 for that table. The store makes some profit, the taxes are paid. The crafter gets his due, let's say 2000. It was determing by what people where willing to pay for it. AND how much it brings to the store. (numbers are made up, I would not pay 3000 for a table )

On the other hand, all those "Golden Boys" are paid by a percentage. Let's say 5% (no idea how much). They bring a 50million deal, they get 2.5million (made up numbers). If next month they bring the same, they make the same.

One of the two may have worked much harder. But it is the value of what they bring to the company that matters when determining the salary

I am sure business owners are not idiots. If they decide to pay someone 3million, you can be sure, they get more than that from him!

[Witchblade77]

I agree with you. But the argument that only some people are replaceable is flawed. Everyone is replaceable. It just depends on the situation. I'll use the Youtubers as an example. At anytime there are literally ̶h̶u̶n̶d̶r̶e̶d̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶s̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ millions? of content creators competing to produce the best content. The same can be said for inventors, CEO's and business owners. They are all replaceable. People in general are very replaceable. There are 7 billion of us.

when it comes to ideas and materializing ideas? some people are more replaceable and others as callous as it sounds (although I should clarify, depending on context - every person is irreplaceable, but.. its all in context. a child is irreplaceable to their parent, or their sibling. a loved one is irreplaceable in general. but an unskilled laborer is easy for employer to find and replace, because their contribution to the success is not unique. in context of family, each person is uniquely important. in context of running a business or coming up with solutions to world's problems? not so much) .

of all those thousands upon thousands of content creators on youtube? are all of them producing unique, creative, quality content? the truth is... not everyone has the same contribution to make to the world. not everyone has a creative drive, not everyone has the force of will to push and keep pushing past failure. of all the millions of millions of people. how many came up with idea for a lightbulb, for example? less then 5. now. the world does absolutely need the people doing the mundane. it needs janitors and cashiers and machinery operators and all kinds of jobs that genuinely anyone able bodied or even not so able bodied can do. but it also needs the people figure out what needs to be done, who figure out things, get ideas and figure out how to make those ideas reality.

and to give another perspective. not entirely hypothetical example - say.. there is a janitor, someone whose job is replaceable fairly easily, but at the same time.. that janitor - figures out how to reduce their expenses and save more each week and some years later... become a millionaire. just because someone else gave them that job? doesn't make them any less self made because THEY figured out how to re-balance their budget and THEY had the strength of will to keep up with their plan. not anyone else. them. every other janitor working for that company, had the same salary, same opportunities. but only that particular janitor decided to do something different with their salary. ergo. self made.

our world being one of symbiotic relationships doesn't eliminate the importance of an individual taking an idea to its conclusion - if everyone could write and sell an app... everyone WOULD. and I say that as someone who didn't succeed nearly as much as some of my peers with same or even fewer opportunities than I had. becasue i can make all kinds of excuses about how they only got where they did because of all the other people, but reality is... all those other people didn't get ME there. because I didn't get me there. don't underestimate value of leadership. good AND bad. I have worked for a large company too, the kind that was at the point that it could almost run itself. guess what? it fell apart. because original owner sold it to someone else and that someone else? made a lot of bad leadership decisions. and all the people who have worked for that company for decades, under original owner and all? could NOT save it from collapse. if the theory that they are the ones that build the company were sound? that company would still exist.

[Rurin]

The only solution is gulag.

How do you manage to have a so narrow word view that everyone who suggests the rich didn't earn what they have fairly is a communist, and one who wants gulags at that??

Ever heard of this thing called nuance? Just because something's left of the Democrats doesn't mean it's communist, hell, most of Europe is to the left of the Democratic party...

[Zmaniac17]

when it comes to ideas and materializing ideas? some people are more replaceable and others as callous as it sounds (although I should clarify, depending on context - every person is irreplaceable, but.. its all in context. a child is irreplaceable to their parent, or their sibling. a loved one is irreplaceable in general. but an unskilled laborer is easy for employer to find and replace, because their contribution to the success is not unique. in context of family, each person is uniquely important. in context of running a business or coming up with solutions to world's problems? not so much) .

of all those thousands upon thousands of content creators on youtube? are all of them producing unique, creative, quality content? the truth is... not everyone has the same contribution to make to the world. not everyone has a creative drive, not everyone has the force of will to push and keep pushing past failure. of all the millions of millions of people. how many came up with idea for a lightbulb, for example? less then 5. now. the world does absolutely need the people doing the mundane. it needs janitors and cashiers and machinery operators and all kinds of jobs that genuinely anyone able bodied or even not so able bodied can do. but it also needs the people figure out what needs to be done, who figure out things, get ideas and figure out how to make those ideas reality.

and to give another perspective. not entirely hypothetical example - say.. there is a janitor, someone whose job is replaceable fairly easily, but at the same time.. that janitor - figures out how to reduce their expenses and save more each week and some years later... become a millionaire. just because someone else gave them that job? doesn't make them any less self made because THEY figured out how to re-balance their budget and THEY had the strength of will to keep up with their plan. not anyone else. them. every other janitor working for that company, had the same salary, same opportunities. but only that particular janitor decided to do something different with their salary. ergo. self made.

our world being one of symbiotic relationships doesn't eliminate the importance of an individual taking an idea to its conclusion - if everyone could write and sell an app... everyone WOULD. and I say that as someone who didn't succeed nearly as much as some of my peers with same or even fewer opportunities than I had. becasue i can make all kinds of excuses about how they only got where they did because of all the other people, but reality is... all those other people didn't get ME there. because I didn't get me there. don't underestimate value of leadership. good AND bad. I have worked for a large company too, the kind that was at the point that it could almost run itself. guess what? it fell apart. because original owner sold it to someone else and that someone else? made a lot of bad leadership decisions. and all the people who have worked for that company for decades, under original owner and all? could NOT save it from collapse. if the theory that they are the ones that build the company were sound? that company would still exist.

I don't disagree with much of what you said. Let me put it like this. Everyone has value, but no one is irreplaceable and we are all ultimately cogs in the machine. Self-made is a misleading title to give oneself.

[Deleted]

self made millionaire? yeah i can believe it.
moral millionaire? yeah i can believe it too.

self made or moral billionaire? no i don't see that happening. don't know any companies that big that don't exploit third world countries, break the law, dodge taxes, etc. even with the best intentions, you need to so those things to not get destroyed by competition who does use those practises to get that big.

[baskev]

No, and if you sold a cow for magic beans and stole a magic harp from an angry giant.. wait what the fuck are you talking about.

You where saying ( from what i read) that people are truly never self-made. Because all millionaires have a leg up. I gave a example here where its a true self made person.

Where you are has as much to do with what you do, and who you are when you do it, poor is a relative term, while some people bust their ass some do 3 times as much and never get shit.

Poor is not a relative term. If you have no money you are poor. Poor is not having money to spent. It has nothing to do with social structures etc. Because in our definition you can have allot of money and still be poor ( money wise).
And the amount of work does not impact your self-made. Self means ( the last time i checked) that a person himself did something. And made means create etc. So if a person makes gold out of tin air, designs and sells a new app, he or she makes a formula for free energy and sells it. Its all self made as long as no social construct helps with money. Meaning there is a personal connection with you and the person that lent you money to make it.
But i agree with you...a person who has had a good education and has some connections because of that...i would not by definition call...self made.

For every opportunity taken that allowed someone to finally walk through the door of opportunity, some weren't barely even allowed to come around back.

?? what has this to do with my comment?? I am talking about the definition of being self made. Not about the implications of rich being rich. And poor being poor?!? But i agree with you. A poor person has less % change to become richer as a rich person does.

Self made, hardly, more like self made relative to whatever details generally left out to sell whatever bullshit narrative, like the wild wild west nonsense.

??? again what has this to do with it.
Self made is a definition that is a text books etc. Its not a new term or something. Its clearly defined! And its words separated from each other also make sense when you put them as 1 definition.
self = you alone, 1 person without anyone else
made = creating, designing etc
I left nothing out of the narrative. I was talking about the definition , not the social implication, or this article.