Not really (of course you are using leverage and have to be good at capital allocation) but I don't know why you said/suggested being a billionaire is a bad thing. Yeah you employ other people but in a capitalistic system if they could/can do any better themselves they should quit the next day. The truth is most people would like to have their jobs. Let's take it to an analogical extreme, say/imagine an alien civilization advance enough to transverse galaxy comes to you and says we will provide you with technology and living conditions that pushes you forward thousands of years but you will have to work for us for hundred years. Would you take the deal? I'm guessing yes.. Something wrong here? Not really, a pretty good deal in my opinion.
You are not exactly leeching if they are in a better condition than they would be otherwise, then it is or should be more preferably called a symbiotic relationship...
It doesn't really work that way in practice. In theory perfect competition is great. In reality though when someone keeps all their apples and leverages that to getting all the orchards what is happening isn't adding value or improving the orchards but simply using the accumulated transactional value of your many apples to get free future apples without contribution. Had you spent your initial assets the only real change is that the people working the orchards keep their orchards and you need to work somewhere too instead of getting free apples from their apple salary. The need for apples would still exist and be filled. As such in your example you assume there is an initial, otherwise nonexistent, contribution that wouldn't exist otherwise. That generally isn't true. To your credit there are some situations where it would potentially apply. Scientific discovery being a good one just as you highlighted. Most very rich get there by basically taking X from every worker and keeping it themselves, not by inventing electricity. This does not contribute to society and yes, is in effect leeching. The nice thing about us taking this detour is that it highlights how capitalism is reliant on actually spending all your earnings or it breaks. Either way. Becoming a billionaire whether good or bad is a result of money working for you, not you working for money. The money would exist regardless. You do not actually contribute any labour.Anyway. My point wasn't that billionaires are a plague on mankind (they are, but we would all like to be I bet) but that the astronomical figure of being a billionaire isn't something you will ever reach by having an excellent job and doing well. And so because of the exceedingly limited pool of people privy to that titleit also isn't very useful to highlight gender differences. On this point I do hope we can agree.
As a small case in point. I already explained the rough income and labour it takes if you work for money and want to be a billionaire. Now if instead you put a 100 bucks into your average representative stock of say 5% kickback yearly for the same amount of time you end up being the happy owner of (the hitherto nonexistent silly amount of) roughly 240 tredecillions.Working can get you rich (think millionaire at the end of your life). Working isn't what will gets you silly rich (billionaire, ever).
Money is a system for labour allocation and it's true it is not always a measure of value added in work but that's not necessarily bad. Say if someone needs investment in their company and you are giving it to them you are entitled to some amount of discussed profits. Investing in large companies is like betting on a horse race (and I agree the value add doesn't exist to that big of a degree in comparison) but you are still providing liquidity to the company. All in all You never really get paid anything without adding value because remember, for you to get more money someone has to give you more money which means you have something they want, nobody is ever going to hand you out something regardless of how rich or big of a corporation you are if they don't think they will get back something from it. There is nothing wrong with someone being a billionaire except others being less competent by default, I whole heartedly think if everyone was smart there won't be any billionaires. It's just that there are a lot of things normal people or even single employees of those companies just can't build if their life depended on it. I would rather live in a true capitalist system than a true socialistic system. Think about it, someone has to make good and efficient decisions to be a billionaire and most people couldn't make them if you paid them to. They take the risk and the decisions with personal accountability and if they are right they get rewards if not oh well... but in the end all people get what they want. It's not like anybody with/has gun to their head is being forced to do anything. If you really think you don't want/need something build it yourself if you can't, well live without it. There is no better system. Additionally it's a good thing to accept nobody really wants to take the risk and not get rewarded for it, if you propose a system that does that you are killing innovation.
The thing I like about true capitalism is it's self correcting and it allows people who don't even agree with it to get a fair deal and doesn't suppress people from doing what they want where instead in socialism You have to function in a certain way agreed upon by the majority. What if I don't care about anything majority cares about and want to do my own thing while trading my shoes for apples. Socialistic systems aren't very accommodating to requests like these even if they are popular. You seem decently smart and I would love to chat with you (some other platform maybe?).
Also note : you can create a socialistic system (for all practical purposes) inside a capitalistic system if you think that's more efficient (they are generally not) but the opposite is not true...
Your math is wrong working get you really rich (billionaire rich) but it just doesn't generally happen (think the CEO's of companies) and I don't know why you are comparing salaries to profits. Salaries are derived from your value divided by your replacability (in some sense) while profits are a whole different thing. Either way both are representative of profits generated because of you so you are entitled to the rewards it's just that workers are more easily replicable so the value is divided due to other people willing to do it.
First it was the objective to justify it that is what you are trying to do.Second : i don't think Plato's vision matters much here as these are workaholic people with minimal to null time for family and family politics. this isn't about personal interactions in their family as work and personal interactions are generally put in their own separate zones.Third : assuming plato was right there still have to be reasons to it (deeper than one described here which is none) the question is why it is not how/what it is?
They are put in their own separate zones but that's not correct. They are not separate. The male desire to provide for his offspring is biological and it compels his want of money.And no, people who have a lot of money are not 'workaholics'. They have a 'work flow' in their respective fields. And they are 'occupied' with their profession. But the idea that the richest among us are the most 'workaholic' is a uniquely American , and puritanical, perspective which is just not true. The richest have a profession or status which gives them access to a lot of money. And because these professions are high steaks they must be on the ball much of the time. This said, they are not necessarily working crazy hard all the time for every penny they earn.
It just doesn't make sense most ambitious people you would see around don't really work with the conception of I need to be a billionaire to provide for my offspring, this sort of tendancy i think can be expected more commonly in females. Yeah they aren't 'working hard' all the time but that workflow is all work all the time. Presuming that they are chilling is just not rational statement. These are generally very busy people even if they aren't assembling machinery on the factory floor.
Right. I guess 'ambitious' is better term. It's not their motive but it's in their hard wiring.
I worked at an exclusive Country Club in Texas. Trust me. These people are NOT working hard all the time. They are, however, knowledgeable and aware of the flow of money enough to talk about it almost all the time. But they are not busting ass. They are lounging around an exclusive golf course chatting. Once they know how the system works they maneuver it, like riding a bike. The idea they are up all the time championing the markets is just not true.
In a capitalistic system power is money. Money can get things you want done so that becomes true by definition, don't know if you should work for that reason alone though
I don't think you understand. Making money isn't exactly like pushing buttons and people just giving you money. You have to provide value to people for them to give you money instead, no amount of money is excess as long as the economy can support it. What you are essentially saying is you can be excessively progressive. Like my sister isn't dumb. Additionally not all men are billionaires but most billionaires (and self made billionaires) are men.
I have no drive to follow any career that would lead me to be a billionaire. I'd rather invest my time and resources into research in a field I'm passionate about. I don't doubt that I'd be able be to achieve that if I really applied myself, but I'd get nothing out of it and it would be pointless and a utter waste of my own time and talent.
I'd rather invest my time and resources into research in a field that I'm passionate about. You do realise you can do it far better if you had more resources right? And I really don't understand the first statement either, you don't have a 'career' to become resourceful you just have to add enough value in the field you are already interested in. (I am taking the assumption that you have the drive for your current pursuit) . Sorry if this seems rude from an external perspective I really don't feel it from this side from the screen but I have been told it feels like it sometimes, it's not intentional, do tell me if it does feel like it...
Additionally are you saying personally lack drive or most women in general lack drive far more than men?
I lack the drive to become a billionaire, it's not important to me or my life in any way. I know what I want from life, what institutions I hope to be working for, and the personal satisfaction of discovery in something I love. If I had 2 pennies or 5 billion dollars, my research would be limited by the people I choose to work for (which I would do, because freelancing that sort of thing is irresponsible and can just have a negative affect on everything like credibility and spread of information etc.) Owning a little place in the country isn't very expensive, and that's what I'll be happiest with in my life.
You seem to be purposefully misunderstanding what I'm trying to communicate. So I'll put it in the plainest of terms: I don't care about money.If others do, good for them.
What kind of research are you involved in or are we talking about here? I am not purposefully trying to misunderstand your point, your point is common but it is not something I can understand from my perspective. It's just a like the rocket problem, say you can have 5 billion and you can put forward science by a certain amount with it or you can be an independent researcher and do your own thing even if results are puny compared to what you could achieve by choosing a different path. Why would you chose to do your own thing... I am very 'science' oriented and the only thing I care about is how much ahead does it go, not how much forward can I push it with my own two hands. Why would you chose to have less done in the field that you care about...
It is not about money for money's sake it's about what you can push forward with it. And how forward can you push things you care about...
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Not necessarily. But most of these people have 'connections' because they want to be around more competent and like minded people. I really don't understand what people mean when they say it's all about the connections, do you really think if you knew bill gates and tens of other people, were not competent your ideas would get funded? I believe quite the opposite is true, if you analyze the companies funded by these people you will see it is generally very reasonably/strictly funded (compared to what some other vc's will give you if you are that resourceful) and they are not just handing out checks to people they know. And have you considered self made billionaires, like fb didn't need connections before it was worth a billion dollars.
Actually the people you need to know is not Bill Gates etc.. but things like politicians, people in wallstreat etc.. These are the ones that open up opportunities or have access to information that you either dont or would be too bothersome to acquire yourself.This has nothing to do with "competent" or "like minded people". Frankly if you just started to golf you would start running into highly influential people regularly that you could then start fairly easily networking with.
That is true but your conclusion that billionaires are made because of networking. They might get aided by it but you can't and won't get anywhere just depending on it. Additionally there are just far far too many people of that status that just don't play golf, network or even are that social. Networking (in the way you describe it) is just not the critical thing. You already need to have the money for things like networking to get you more money.
And it doesn't make sense to say woman aren't becoming billionaires because there are plenty of them with half a billion but most men wouldn't network with them. Instead I can see exactly the opposite taking place...
Yes and no. First of all the reason I suggested golfing is specifically because you dont need anything besides that. I know people personally who does not have any real success to their name or wealth in their pockets who for the simple reason they play golf gets invited to dinners with influential people and international events they have no business being in just because their "golfing buddies" knew a guy who knew a guy or some such nonsense.Of course golfing is not the ultimate gathering of everyone but its truly impressive how far it reaches by itself and you can easily gain access to further "groups" to join such as boat clubs. You only really need a foot in the door so to speak.As for why networking is critical to becoming a billionaire. You dont become a billionaire by just doing good business, becoming a multi millionaire is basically the cap on that. To become a billionaire you need something extra and that is usually where connections comes in. Sure there are exceptions but they are that, exceptions that proves the rule.Lastly connections alone can get you extremely far. People getting empty positions that pays well is normal among the "elites" or whatever you would like to call those who are on the inside of these large networks of people.
Just two things : most billionaires are in consumer oriented businesses so you are probably over estimating what anyone will give you to do nothing especially when it's their money and not govt's, it's capitalism after all nobody does someone a favor (and keeps doing it) without expecting some form of return. Are saying girls reach multimillionaire statuses and just are discriminated against in social events is irrational as I have highlighted in my previous statement. Male to female ratio is probably skewed there so I expect girls to have an advantage as people would be extra generous in favours towards opposite sex (especially when there are generally are none)
You would be surprised how much stuff you are just showered with because you are "one of them". I personally have been offered a job in an insurance company in Switzerland and possibly a bank position as well and I have literally no qualifications just because I happen to have ties with one person there.Aside from that connections is probably the most important thing for consumer based businesses. Its the slightest margins that makes a mass produced product succeed or fail so if you can chip away on better deals because you know a guy who knows a guy who produces something you need that small percentage equals millions.Not to mention how much corrupting the government can give you.
Ok, but why will a woman have a disadvantage in this? (They should be more leveraged in conditions like these)
Well the proof is sort in the pudding already dont you think? Arguing if's or but's when its already a reality is sort of pointless. If I had to guess its probably because of quite a lot of "boys club" mentality and also probably no short amount of sexism.For example I dont think Donald Trump goes to a woman when he thinks to himself that he needs a reliable business partner for something.
Actually he does, one of the first woman building managers in new york was employed by Donald Trump. You might know Barbara Corcoran from shark tank, guess who employed her as a partner to sell plaza in one his most difficult times. There is no proof in the pudding, you don't have any factual and verifiable information and it is/and would be irrational for me to accept your reasoning just because you 'feel' it is true or they are true.
"Why is the number of female billionaires so low?"If this is not proof of gender bias at least somewhere then I dont know what is. Unless you want to start a scientific study into this which also brings into question how such a thing would even be done you are not going to get overly much further than "feelings" and general anecdotes.The only thing you or I could probably do is try estimate what path someone takes to becoming a billionaire and then make assumptions on where in this process women are disadvantaged, because they are. There is no reason to assume that women are somehow worse at business or leadership than men so their "Performance" as such is very unlikely. That leaves circumstantial factors like networking.
That's fair. However a systematically enforced and planned disadvantage orchastrated by some of the smartest and rational humans on earth seems far more unlikely than what I would nominate, just basic social norms and how people are expected to follow them. Or just sheer lack of drive as highlighted by all three woman here. Maybe a combination of both.
My question is not a proof of gender bias by the way it's merely an observation. You will notice it pretty easily if you look at say top 100s. It's sort of like unknowingly observing an advert for an all girls school and not noticing all students were females/girls. I don't see how you made it so it would become a bias. It can't be, that's not what the definition means...
No that does not make much sense either. First of all being a billionaire is not necessarily a sign of competency. Although I doubt Trump is actually a billionaire for various reasons if we take him at face value then he certainly is not an "intellectual" or even rational.Something that does correlate very well with billionaires are self confidence to the point where they ignore what is actually correct or not. Another thing that correlates with wealthy successful people is lack of empathy and even outright sociopath. It allows them to make decisions based on benefits rather than "fairness".These by themselves do not exclude women however there is something that might lead to this. If they get a view of how the world works they are not likely to change that because of their confidence in their own worldview. So if they already have a little "boys club" where they do these important networking and business meetings they are going to try maintain that forever in essence.
I can assure you he is. What you are going off on is your perception of how competent these people are, how you would do those things instead and how much of your morals you think they offend. In real world if you are not competent you get killed. We operate some buisnessses in our family and it is not as simplistic as your overview perception would have you believe. What you are saying/doing is going off on tangents just trying to regard all buisness leaders as dumb, while not countering any of the the points stated above. I would be willing to bet if you were placed as ceo of any of these companies you wouldn't know half of what to do. The conversation is over you have nothing to add.
Sure I do not have the qualifications of being a CEO but having it would not make me smarter, its just another skillset than what I currently have. I could probably learn it if I wanted but it goes against my personality so I would probably hate everything about it.Likewise you can be really good at something but still being dumb as a bag of bricks. Autism is a good example of how someone can have an extreme talent for some things without necessarily having talent in much else or being particularly smarter than anyone else.This I think is what is the case for Trump, not the Autism but the skewed talent. He seams to have two major talents, one is the ability to make some people believe him very strongly even when telling obvious lies and the other is his talent for showmanship. This makes him a pretty good con-man which he has exploited for most his life. Why people believe him though is entirely beyond me but I can't argue with results.What I can argue with however is his competency because again.. results.. There are a long list of pathetic failures due to Trumps incompetency such as his numerous bankruptcies; and before you say Trump "benefited" from those bankruptcies which in same cases you can make an argument for.. you know what else would have been beneficial? If they succeeded instead. I am not about to attribute his failures as successes just because he managed to protect himself from most of the damage he caused.The fact is Trump could have accomplished the exact same things he has done without any of the drama or issues he is currently facing since most of that is entirely self-inflicted. Before you come here and tell me Trump is a successful businessman let me just remind you that he has only had three successful businesses. One is his TV show, the 2nd one is him selling his name to put on stuff and the last is real estate which he simply inherited from his much more successful dad.
There are far more nerdy and moral people than you who are far far more successful. Anybody can learn anything they want to but tying your shoes is not the same level of skill as managing a company. It requires far more understanding. I hope you are not telling yourself that the reason you don't have high value skills is because they are morally unethical. You are the sorts of people who like to state amazon has added no value to the world and don't understand why jeff bezos is rich, it's because there is a value to eliminating inefficiencies. As with trump, in the words of one of the smartest people in the world 'the point to be remembered when trump speaks is you have to take him directionally not literally'. Believe me far more people are logically stupid than they are stupid in their Instincts. People who hate trump or people like you see trump, observe the surface and how he doesn't speak like the/a normal harvard graduate would and assume he is irrational without even running any numbers. The point is none of you have ever even ran the numbers let alone think about what they could be and go on to think nobody can see the obvious that you/they are seeing... and people like ken lagone and peter theil are just plain irrational. The failiures were chapter 11 bankruptcies so it doesn't matter much except yes he was wrong a certain number of times but a lot of the biggest hedge funds have been or were in the negative for a number of years and in the words of elon musk ' failiure is an option here if things aren't failing you aren't innovating enough' should he have failed if he was always right? No, but the argument that people are irrational because people make mistakes is irrational, if you literally made no investing mistake ever either you are the richest there ever was or you aren't doing good financially as you never invest.
Even if his dad gave him all his money and none to his other 4 children donald trump still made decent money when compared to 10 percent per year compounding considering his lifestyle. In the last paragraph you state drama or issues he is facing, you literally think he cares? He doesn't. If he would have been given the chance he would do them again and it's his way of living like you have your way of living. According to your description of what trump does you could say managing a company is just about telling people what to do but like you said if you were placed in the same position you wouldn't have to skillset to do as well. Yes trump does real estate (where most of his net worth is), yes he does a tv show, and yes he puts his name on things. But neither are as simple as you seem to be projecting... managing and doing these is not a matter of just showing up and just starting to randomly throw darts everywhere. What are the odds you think that a random human of the street will do any of those at least even partially as successful as he does...
Kids thing is understandable. What do you attribute the lack of drive to?
The nature of women and men. Less women have the drive to reach those “heights”, men thrive off of it. I’d say it’s simply a biological thing. After all, in today’s society every opportunity is available for both women and men. Men work more for it.
Okay, why is that?
Likely ties to something evolutionarily in our past.
Why didn't social norms enter your field of view first?
Because male/female behavior bypasses social norms. Even in different species. If chimpanzees are given choices among human toys, the males will choose trucks and balls and the girls will choose dolls and similar.
That's interesting. Can you link the research paper?
Here's an article. I'm sure you're capable of googling if you want morewww.newscientist.com/.../
Yeah but I was more interested in the particular article you read. Now the conclusion you are signalling towards seems to be Inaccurate. And so is pointed towards in the article. You just have to take two assumptions, one : toys with wheels are inherently more interesting (due to the mechanical parts involved and them being 'active toys') and two : plush doll toys represent/simulate babies. Now without much of logical/mental gymnastics you can conclude why females spend time with plush toys and males do not. All in all this is just far too surface leveled and basic leveled/inconclusive to conclude more complex and abstract things like drive will be gender dependent and overshadow social norms.
Smarter than women, do you have anything backing it or are you just winging it?
@sensible27 Look up any of the hundreds of studies almost all of which arrive at that conclusion. And the fact that most billionaires are still men despite all of the affirmative action crap suggests that I'm correct