The world is more complex than a lot of the arguments that people have on this issue.
One side appears quite facile and naive in their hero worship of entrepreneurs/investors at seeing/creating the future (when the chances are they merely bump into it along with many others).
These are almost universally young people who are nurtured/protected by their families/society or already successful people who think they are the sole cause of their success (it's usually a combination of internal AND external factors).
The other side is too oppressive and cynical, stating that entrepreneurs don't create jobs, but extract wealth. These are usually unprotected people, the poor, and the unsuccessful who just don't understand why they are trodden upon and treated like vermin to be ignored.
The world isn't black or white. It looks like it is extraordinary complex with many shades of gray.
Hence the best way to look at this issue is thus: If you were the down trodden upon, the poor, the unlucky, the unhealthy - How would you like the tax system to treat you?
Would you like them to say:
No, your situation is ALL your fault - the rich matter, we shouldn't tax them and let them create jobs for little all you.
OR
Yes, the rich are extraordinarily lucky to have what they have, and it would be best to share that around.
Because as you all know: You had a 50% chance of being born in the rest of the world, in the darkest poverty, where nothing you did, said, or who you are meant anything because of your situation.
Born in America: Billionaire.
Born in Afghanistan: Your dead.
What you can achieve has doesn't correlate strongly with what actually happens to you - you are made by your situation.
We float with the times and environment around us - not the other way around.
Interestingly enough, the framing of the Quora question leaves out "the buyers" as part of the critical circle for wealth creation. That is the role that, I thought, Hanauer's talk was pointing out is played by the middle class. Perhaps the Quora question meant to capture them as "the workers", but that, according to my interpretation of the talk, mislabels their most critical role.
The world is more complex than a lot of the arguments that people have on this issue.
One side appears quite facile and naive in their hero worship of entrepreneurs/investors at seeing/creating the future (when the chances are they merely bump into it along with many others).
These are almost universally young people who are nurtured/protected by their families/society or already successful people who think they are the sole cause of their success (it's usually a combination of internal AND external factors).
The other side is too oppressive and cynical, stating that entrepreneurs don't create jobs, but extract wealth. These are usually unprotected people, the poor, and the unsuccessful who just don't understand why they are trodden upon and treated like vermin to be ignored.
The world isn't black or white. It looks like it is extraordinary complex with many shades of gray.
Hence the best way to look at this issue is thus: If you were the down trodden upon, the poor, the unlucky, the unhealthy - How would you like the tax system to treat you?
Would you like them to say:
No, your situation is ALL your fault - the rich matter, we shouldn't tax them and let them create jobs for little all you.
OR
Yes, the rich are extraordinarily lucky to have what they have, and it would be best to share that around.
Because as you all know: You had a 50% chance of being born in the rest of the world, in the darkest poverty, where nothing you did, said, or who you are meant anything because of your situation.
Born in America: Billionaire.
Born in Afghanistan: Your dead.
What you can achieve has doesn't correlate strongly with what actually happens to you - you are made by your situation.
We float with the times and environment around us - not the other way around.