I'm going to say yes. It's clearly impossible to get to be a billionaire by working. You have to get it from investing, or be the beneficiary of inherited wealth or be the beneficiary of "intellectual property". All of these have some moral grey zone component.
If you are going to be judged by the moral of all others non-billionaire, probably.
But yeah, as a non-billionaire, I'd say that when things get to that scale, you become less moral compared to the mass. People's life becomes just numbers.
It depends on how they became a billionaire. If all their employees and suppliers' employees have enough to eat, a good home, good health care, and the time, energy, and means to live their best life, then they're probably okay. The better question is: can someone become a billionaire in a moral way? I can't think of one.
The way he made his billions, and the company he built doing it, is why people are skeptical of the company's moves into open source even though he's not in charge anymore.
On one hand, speaking for the US, far too many struggle because their cost and risk exposure far exceeds their income. For too many, it exceeds their income potential.
Billionaires are a product of that. Too much went away from labor.
That trends immoral. And it is currently legal. Corruption itself is basically legal. Maybe it should not be, or... better:
Say the US was a more robust social democracy. The vast majority of people have income appropriate to their cost and risk exposure, do not struggle, live modest, reasonable, fulfilling lives.
Would this question come up outside smallish circles, rather than the more general discussion happening today?
I know I would not care. I care very much in the current scenario. Too many are in real trouble, struggling, working more than is necessary.
I have arrived here:
Do the people right. Beyond that, make as much as you can.
It is harder to make billions in that scenario, but the net happiness in the world is far greater.
Say someone makes a few billion, or even just one and change. What is the meaningful difference in happiness between that and tens or hundreds of billions?
Agency is about all I can think of, and really that is a different question:
Should individuals command nation sized resources?
I think the school of effective altruism* would say you have to be rich to do a lot of good.
One could even argue Bill Gates' comfort of not cooking, shopping or cleaning for himself is good, given he uses is power/wealth for good more efficiently if he doesn't do chores. (putting has past aside for arguments sake)
So I'd say it usually is immoral, unless you use almost all your wealth to do good.* *
It gets really interesting if we ask if being rich is immoral. I'm not rich in my country, but I'm rich compared to people in other countries. Does this, especially with our colonialist past (and present), make me immoral? I think it does and yet it would help little if I lived a more frugal life either.
I'm living a compromise and it's biased towards my well being. I'm living very moderate, what I don't need I save for later, not much travel either. And yet I own good speakers, purely for my pleasure, financed by my privilege of being a white male in the "western world".
Yes. It is impossible to generate a billion dollars of value. The only way to be a billionaire is, in some way or another, to divert resources from other people, be it workers or consumers.
"Divert"? You seem to be assuming that those resources belonged to other people. That's begging the question - you're implicitly assuming your conclusion.
You're right, they didn't necessarily belong to someone else, because "belong" is a useless term. I'm talking about who produces value and who didn't, and my rationale is that getting a lot of value you didn't produce is immoral, which is ultimately a subjective statement but one I can defend. But because they didn't create a billion dollars in value, then someone else had to produce it. Meaning that someone provided value but got less than what they provided so that a billionaire got more than the value they provided. This is a consequence of the premise that they didn't create a billion dollars in value. I'm saying that it's a diversion, because they contributed less, yet got much more. So in my view, since people who contribute more deserve more, up to a limit on both ends, and that billionaires get much much more than they contribute, being a billionaire means taking what someone else deserves. Which if you agree I think can be fairly called diversion.
Here's how it looks to me. Wealth often (though not always) comes from increased productivity. That usually looks like new tools or techniques making people more productive. That new productivity creates more money.
When that happens, the workers that know how to use the tools deserve some of that new money, because they are now producing more. But also, the one who bought the tools gets part of the money, and so does the one who makes the tool. (If you think that the workers deserve all the new money, then nobody bothers to buy the new tool, so there's no new money. Who does that help?)
So the one who buys the tools in fact needs to get some of the money from the new productivity. He's not taking what "belongs" to the workers, because the workers don't deserve all the money, because without the new tools there isn't any new money.
The contribution of the billionaires, then, is precisely that they bought the new tools that enabled the new productivity that produced the new money that the billionaires collected part of.
Now, you can cite me plenty of examples where this is abused - where the billionaires take most of the money, and the workers get to keep having a job and nothing more. That's wrong. But it's also at least counterproductive to say that the billionaires/investors/capitalists don't get paid back for buying the tools. (I would argue that it's more than counterproductive; it's immoral. But at a minimum, it's counterproductive.)
As others have said, it depends on how you get rich.
Let's say someone runs a shoe store. When someone wants their money more than they want new shoes, they walk past the store, unmolested. But when they want new shoes more than they want money, they go into the store. They willingly give up their money to get something they want more than money. That is, the store makes all their customers better off - not better off in terms of money, but in terms of "money plus stuff". The customer gave up something they wanted less in order to get something they wanted more - they're better off in their own terms. If the store owner can make all the customers better off and get rich doing it? Then I agree with Deng Xiaoping: "To get rich is glorious."
To get rich by exploitation, by theft, or by deceit is shameful (that is, the person doing it should feel shame, whether or not they do, and whether or not the society actively shames them). It is shameful in China and in America; it was shameful in Deng's day, and today, and it will be shameful forever.
So: Being a billionaire is not inherently immoral, by itself. But it depends on how you made the billions.
In all combat sports, there are weight categories. This ensures a featherweight isn't beaten up by a heavyweight. If a guy wins 100 fights straight because he is good, it is okay, because they are fair fights (assuming no doping, no biased judges etc). But in business, this is not the same - one set of rules for big businesses and billionaires and another set for small biz/startups. This is after one becomes a billionaire, which many billionaires use unethical (at best) and illegal (at worst) steps to get to.
I guess "being a billionaire" in itself is not immoral - how one gets there, and what one does to stay there is what defines how immoral the person is.
24 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 63.2 ms ] threadI suppose that just goes to show we all have our own different tablets of values...
Would that food have been produced if you didn't have the motivation to hoard it?
But yeah, as a non-billionaire, I'd say that when things get to that scale, you become less moral compared to the mass. People's life becomes just numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Antitrust_litigatio...
The way he made his billions, and the company he built doing it, is why people are skeptical of the company's moves into open source even though he's not in charge anymore.
On one hand, speaking for the US, far too many struggle because their cost and risk exposure far exceeds their income. For too many, it exceeds their income potential.
Billionaires are a product of that. Too much went away from labor.
That trends immoral. And it is currently legal. Corruption itself is basically legal. Maybe it should not be, or... better:
Say the US was a more robust social democracy. The vast majority of people have income appropriate to their cost and risk exposure, do not struggle, live modest, reasonable, fulfilling lives.
Would this question come up outside smallish circles, rather than the more general discussion happening today?
I know I would not care. I care very much in the current scenario. Too many are in real trouble, struggling, working more than is necessary.
I have arrived here:
Do the people right. Beyond that, make as much as you can.
It is harder to make billions in that scenario, but the net happiness in the world is far greater.
Say someone makes a few billion, or even just one and change. What is the meaningful difference in happiness between that and tens or hundreds of billions?
Agency is about all I can think of, and really that is a different question:
Should individuals command nation sized resources?
I would argue no.
If you use your wealth and power for good it can be a great thing for you and for society.
Providing good jobs and benefits.
Building more companies that treat employees well.
Donating to charities.
One could even argue Bill Gates' comfort of not cooking, shopping or cleaning for himself is good, given he uses is power/wealth for good more efficiently if he doesn't do chores. (putting has past aside for arguments sake)
So I'd say it usually is immoral, unless you use almost all your wealth to do good.* *
It gets really interesting if we ask if being rich is immoral. I'm not rich in my country, but I'm rich compared to people in other countries. Does this, especially with our colonialist past (and present), make me immoral? I think it does and yet it would help little if I lived a more frugal life either.
I'm living a compromise and it's biased towards my well being. I'm living very moderate, what I don't need I save for later, not much travel either. And yet I own good speakers, purely for my pleasure, financed by my privilege of being a white male in the "western world".
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
* * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdro3Zz5YsM ;)
So the one who buys the tools in fact needs to get some of the money from the new productivity. He's not taking what "belongs" to the workers, because the workers don't deserve all the money, because without the new tools there isn't any new money.
The contribution of the billionaires, then, is precisely that they bought the new tools that enabled the new productivity that produced the new money that the billionaires collected part of.
Now, you can cite me plenty of examples where this is abused - where the billionaires take most of the money, and the workers get to keep having a job and nothing more. That's wrong. But it's also at least counterproductive to say that the billionaires/investors/capitalists don't get paid back for buying the tools. (I would argue that it's more than counterproductive; it's immoral. But at a minimum, it's counterproductive.)
Let's say someone runs a shoe store. When someone wants their money more than they want new shoes, they walk past the store, unmolested. But when they want new shoes more than they want money, they go into the store. They willingly give up their money to get something they want more than money. That is, the store makes all their customers better off - not better off in terms of money, but in terms of "money plus stuff". The customer gave up something they wanted less in order to get something they wanted more - they're better off in their own terms. If the store owner can make all the customers better off and get rich doing it? Then I agree with Deng Xiaoping: "To get rich is glorious."
To get rich by exploitation, by theft, or by deceit is shameful (that is, the person doing it should feel shame, whether or not they do, and whether or not the society actively shames them). It is shameful in China and in America; it was shameful in Deng's day, and today, and it will be shameful forever.
So: Being a billionaire is not inherently immoral, by itself. But it depends on how you made the billions.
I guess "being a billionaire" in itself is not immoral - how one gets there, and what one does to stay there is what defines how immoral the person is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html