Steinbeck has a dynamite line about this. It's a goofy point at any rate because there is no evidence that you can realistically _save_ to become a billionaire. It's typically inherited.
> Where is the growth and innovation in those countries?
Literally everywhere? A fun exercise is to read about some burgeoning Canadian or European tech companies and contrast them with eg Uber or WeWork.
> I want to live in a country with opportunity, not one of equality
Without public schools and healthcare, most people get no opportunity.
I'd appreciate you quoting it.
It's often attributed to Steinbeck but in my understanding, it's not entirely clear if that's true or not.
Since I have you for a moment, let me just say I admire the work you do for Rust.
People love to point to FANNG but the reality is America did this for the boomers, union membership was over 30% and we still had super wealthy people. CEO to average employee income was around 80:1, now it's closer to 250:1.
When 3 people own 50% of all wealth in America (1) it's not insane to say that we have a serious problem. I don't want everyone in America guaranteed a six figure salary but come on there's got to be a better balance.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric...
If you want to be rich you either need to start out with money (giving you bargaining power in every negotiated investment decision) or innovate in some way and bargain very aggressively and successfully. And that doesn't just mean bargaining with your competitors and members of the investment class, but doing the same with employees in your organization. One of the most reliable ways to do this is to suggest that you got rich through a mixture of hard work and fiscal prudence and then get them to sign away most of their negotiating power on a contract drafted for your benefit.
The rules aren't fair, they're made by the rich. Learning how to follow them won't make you richer because they're designed to increase the wealth at the top.
Almost no-one advocates seizing wealth hrough tax. Merely work (income). Since the rich have wealth and the poor work (earn income)
1. 60 hours per week at $15/hr for 52.1429 weeks per year is $47k/year.
2. In this magical world where you can get 60 hours per week on the clock, you'd also be entitled to time and a half for 20 hours per week, which would actually be $55k/year. You're underselling it here!
3. And if you're talking about two+ 30 hour / week minimum wage jobs:
3a. Chances are you're now in the world where you also don't get employer healthcare. Hooray!
3b. Good luck getting all of your jobs to schedule in such a way that you actually get all 60 hours per week, without getting fired from your second job because of scheduling conflicts with your first.
I think wealth is just chosen because the differences are more dramatic.
I think that is nearly equivalent to saying that the average company is now 4x larger. CEO pay is strongly related to the size of the company.
If this is a problem (not saying it is or isn't) then the solution would be to make companies smaller. We could break them up. Nothing else is required, certainly not income confiscation.
Something feeding this change is that companies now operate across borders more. That makes companies bigger. A trouble with breaking up large companies is that other nations might not do likewise. Nations that don't break up companies could have an advantage over those that do, with their companies having greater economy of scale.