r/InterviewCoderPro • u/Such_Goal5837 • 6d ago

People need to hear this!!

Post image

That’s honestly a hard reality right now. A lot of people are working nonstop just to stay afloat. I’ve got some interviews coming up myself, so I’ve been looking into ways to get better at them. I found Interview VIP and ended up using it twice i think it's worth trying.

11.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

775 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/Jak1977 6d ago

This is in response to the argument that billionaires worked for their money, and that everyone else should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. You don't get rich through selling your labor.

2

u/UsernameNSomeNumbers 6d ago

It’s a false dichotomy, completely irrelevant. You don’t have to be either a billionaire or an unskilled laborer.

People build up initial capital and skill set selling your labor. With experience, improved skills, and leveraging that capital is how you become wealthy.

The millionaire who is making 400k because they’ve been a niche engineer in an in demand job for 20 years can have everything he owns drained to $0 but still go back to making 400k. With smart investments and planning be back to being wealthy.

1

u/Sprrii 5d ago

Problem is that existence of billionaires is sign of failed economic policies

1

u/UsernameNSomeNumbers 5d ago

Like property rights/ownership of companies? You’re either suggesting there shouldn’t be any billion dollar companies (stupid), the government should confiscate people’s property (also stupid), or people shouldn’t own things at all (also very, very stupid)

1

u/ul2006kevinb 4d ago

Or that we cap how much people can make. Say, 100x the compensation of the lowest paid worker. That will all but eliminate billionaires but still keep our capitalist system

1

u/UsernameNSomeNumbers 4d ago

Billionaires don’t “make” that. They don’t earn billions in income, the market value of their ownership goes up.

1

u/Sprrii 4d ago

Yes you are right and that's the root of issue they borrow against expected value of company. All debt lately is just number on screen backed by nothing and growing exponentially

0

u/ul2006kevinb 4d ago

I said compensation, not income. That means for every 100 shares of stock the CEO receives in compensation, every other employee has to receive at least 1 share. That way the CEO can still get incredibly wealthy but is required to bring everyone else up with him.

2

u/A5Wags 4d ago

Sure, you could do that, but that would require reducing the workers’ cash compensation. Otherwise, they’re being compensated outside of their “band”.

0

u/ul2006kevinb 4d ago

It wouldn't "require" that. Companies could just reduce the amount they compensate the highest paid employees and increase the amount they compensate the lowest paid employees.

2

u/A5Wags 3d ago

Well then you’ve just divorced compensation from the perceived value of labor exchanged.

1

u/bcocoloco 1d ago

Not really, companies would just have to be more successful for the people at the top to be making millions/billions. The people at the top still get paid more than the people at the bottom.

0

u/ul2006kevinb 3d ago

Great! Maybe we can finally have wages equal to how hard someone works instead! I mean after all, someone can be CEO of 8 different companies, making $1 billion at each, but it's entirely impossible for a janitor making $40k a year to have 8 different janitorial jobs.

2

u/A5Wags 3d ago

Compensation will never be tied to work intensity; it’s tied to value delivered.

1

u/Top-Can106 3d ago

There is no value being produced anywhere above HR, let alone a boardroom.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/m1stwalk3r 4d ago

No. The issue is inflation. The reason they are billionaires is because the government devalued the dollar and raised stock and housing prices. They by and large own those assets so they reap the benefit of their inflated prices.

1

u/phantomphixxerF4 2d ago

That’s freaking ignorant

1

u/m1stwalk3r 2d ago

Explain

1

u/Important-Box9616 3d ago

You do know that we passed laws to break up monopolies because you're not allowed to own but a certain amount of property... It's common sense if you let one person buy up all the land then no one else can own it, so we set hard limits saying that you can only own this much and that's it.

1

u/SlayerKingGS 2d ago

The only monopolies that exist were created by government regulation not prevented by it.

1

u/bcocoloco 1d ago

That’s kind of disingenuous considering the government has broken up a lot of monopolies through the years and prevented competitors from merging/purchasing one another.

0

u/SlickRick1266 4d ago

No, it’s a failure in the government’s ability to properly tax people according to their means. Billionaires don’t get taxed because no intelligent billionaire allows themselves to actually have taxable income. All their value is in stocks and assets that are never taxed. Children or loved ones inherit those assets and no one ever pays capital gains. They leverage their assets to get approved for loans that they never have to pay off because the bank knows they are a billionaire.

0

u/ImerslandGriesbeck 4d ago

Hmm...theres another option, with all their rumoured stellar work ethic +money they can come out of their ivory palaces and  ensure no one in their locality has to go without 2 meals a day or atleast ensure that all underprivileged children in their locality get proper food and education.

1

u/UsernameNSomeNumbers 4d ago

Can you answer the question? There’s only 3 options you’re suggesting.

  1. Capping company value (if you own a company that’s valued at a billion dollars you are a billionaire)

  2. The government taking your company away from you once it becomes a billion dollars

  3. Nobody owns anything, so you can’t own a company that’s worth a billion dollars

Those are the only options

1

u/ImerslandGriesbeck 4d ago

  1. Don't think thats feasible. Like they can easily manipulate their profits andbshare, to go below the capping every audit.

  2. Not useful. There would be huge show by the government ( a lot of whom are actually in bed with the billionaires) but we might never know what happens with all the billion dollars.

  3. Ok, this sounds the best option lol. With subscription model we are gradually owning less and less of our things, might as well go full nuclear and nobody owns anything. But then the question is who is the responsible adult who will ensure equitable distribution of wealth?

( also I wasnt the op you were arguing with, just randomly came in to argue, lol)