Why is there a monopoly on productivity?

[jbriggs444]

The most creative ones create multiple times. Albert Einstein made multiple discoveries. Which is why I said that the number of patients per individual matters. Because if a genius got an invention taken away, this person will just invent again.

Look up Mr. Whitney. He gave up patents as a losing proposition.

 

[FallenApple]

Look up Mr. Whitney. He gave up patents as a losing proposition.

Ah I see. He's a clever guy and eventually became a wealthy business man.

I know someone that was a really innovative doctor. He wasn't making much from gig because it was in Communist China during the 80s. He quit and became a businessman in a completely different trade. Made millions. Its really interesting how these people work.

 

[FallenApple]

A true old saying: "Being born lucky is much better than smart since you can hire smart for peanuts and make money off there efforts then also take credit for there work".
It is called indentured servitude by a rich controlled monopoly. Rich liars call it Democracy.

Lance's Law:
If technical people had to depend on luck they would starve to death.

Think Lance's Law is invalid? Name one technical person you have known personally (not paid off media lie con scams) who has gotten really rich after being born poor? Any more just finding and keeping a job the super greedy rich haven't sent overseas is the American Dream.

A bad example is Bill Gates like most rich people he is a liar and a thief. They always act like they made it on there own. Sorry he was born super rich.
What do you think the fee to go to Harvard is? How many people hand you a $100 million to start a company like him or Zukerberg?
Do you think possibly you could hire a bunch of smart people with that to make you more money and take credit for all there work? Then
lay them off before retirement etc. Yes?

Yeah sure. I personally know 5 people that have married or are dating rich. I personally know three people that are self made millionares through hard work and a bit of luck.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Edit: I have to admit to a certain amount of rancor in this regard. While working for my current employer some ten years ago, I was presented with a contract addendum to sign. Something along the lines of: "In consideration of my continued employment I undertake to assign the rights to all inventions obtained during the period of my employment, whether job related or not, to my employer". There was essentially zero chance that I would actually invent something, but the idea that my employer could come up with such a self-serving document and expect us all to sign it really stuck in my craw. They were within their rights, of course. I had the choice of option of using the door. As I recall, I never signed the thing and nobody noticed.

These documents are quite common in many industries. What's less well known is that they are also unenforceable in California and many other states. There are some subtleties with IP sensitive roles (which can be dealt with via other means) but in general these contracts are viewed as anticompetitive / deterring entrepreneurship. Corporates still put them in contracts even when unenforceable as they're another stick to scare people with.

 

[jbriggs444]

Yeah sure. I personally know 5 people that have married or are dating rich. I personally know three people that are self made millionares through hard work and a bit of luck.

I'm just a well paid techie type, but my wife and I have over a million saved and no mortgage. In retrospect, it does not seem that hard.

 

[FallenApple]

I'm just a well paid techie type, but my wife and I have over a million saved and no mortgage. In retrospect, it does not seem that hard.

It's combination of hard work, intelligence, well made social connections, creativity etc. There are no rules.

 

[FallenApple]

I suspect that physical appearance matters much more for those that are not creative enough to innovate on the spot. Because at that point, using their looks may be their only bargaining chip to marry up the social ladder. Hard work alone is simply not going to cut it for those with an ordinary brain.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This whole thread is built on a very strange house of cards. We started with "Why is there a monopoly - which isn't really a monopoly -- on productivity - which isn't really productivity." Then it was that IQ is normally distributed, but wealth is not, which is not the same as the title. IQ is distributed normally because it is constructed to be distributed normally. The distributions of questions answered correctly on an IQ test is by no means distributed normally. We could do the same for wealth: invent a variable called "wealthosity" or some such and define it to be distributed normally. And what will we learn here? At most that some people use their intelligence to amass wealth, and others do not.

That's not particularly profound.

 

[Tosh5457]

I suspect that physical appearance matters much more for those that are not creative enough to innovate on the spot. Because at that point, using their looks may be their only bargaining chip to marry up the social ladder. Hard work alone is simply not going to cut it for those with an ordinary brain.

Why do you suspect that to be the case? There is no need for an out of the ordinary/genius brain to become rich.

 

[FallenApple]

Why do you suspect that to be the case? There is no need for an out of the ordinary/genius brain to become rich.

I mean the market is largely random, so basically anyone can get really rich by happenstance via offering a service in which there is a sudden, but unpredictable, demand for. It's called being in the right place at the right time. Working really hard running a business isn't going to do any good if the market doesn't have a demand for that service. Unless, one can creatively offset this. Which leads to my main point: to depend less on random luck, one needs to be very intelligent and more importantly, creative by perhaps invoking a innovative spin to attract customers in an otherwise bleak situation, for example. And of course, if one isn't very intelligent nor creative, one needs to have other bargaining chips to offset this. One of those bargaining chips are other traits that makes a person an attractive potential mate. Because it is well known that marriage is a means of social ascension, not only in terms of direct financial attainment but via the resultant connections made as well. Obviously one can still marry up solely due to luck. But it's clear that if one wants to rely less on luck via this route, one needs to have some bargaining chip, perhaps being very good looking is one of them, which ironically also relies on luck as it's due to the genetic lottery. However, with Bayesian reasoning, we can say that given a person already has these good bargaining chips to begin with, their probability of climbing up the social ladder is higher than otherwise, should they try.