When I first started working in tech, everyone got some amount of stock options from the receptionist to the CEO, and departments like support nd manufacturing were actually on site. Post dot.com bust it started to change.
To me the gig economy signaled an effort to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands. I remember when I reached my limit: When Wag got a billion dollar valuation I wondered why all the "greatest minds" in Silicon Valley were focused on apps that made life a teensy bit more convenient for other privileged people (and sometimes killing traditional channels for community connection in so doing) and what happened to really wanting to innovate to make the world a better place?
We didn't really learn the lessons of the dot com bust, we just found a way to move more of the expenses off the P&L.
I am updating my business planning book with a supplement addressing the Triple Bottom Line (profit, environment and social responsibility). Your post got me thinking "Where does innovation fit?"
Part of me wants to say that innovation fits everywhere, and perhaps innovation is a high-level, personal "value" that you either choose or you ignore.
Is there anyone who would like to weigh in or have other insights or opinion?
Well, here's one opinion: Innovation that *doesn't* integrate social responsibility isn't really innovative. People have been pursuing extractive and/or exploitative "progress" for centuries.
You're making a really great point. It's a truly innovative idea if it doesn't integrate social responsibility. Like you said, extractive and exploitative progress is progress for certain parties and countries, and still exploitative for others. Thank you for sharing your POV!
Thanks Guy - Writing about it eloquently, from a Wise Guy like you, helps. Can't believe how much you crank out, and how consistently.
That said, there are some benchmark points that keep getting buried.
The billionaires we hear most about have a maximum of $100-250 billion. Immense. But not.
We the People, on the other hand, have $150 Trillion in net household wealth. Net. <uswealthclock.com> -- source links US Fed. Heard about that ? No ? It's published. Quarterly. But.
Numbers matter. And they can help us, we need good numbers at the ready to plan and compare plans. We have $150 Trillion - with a T - compared to any billionaire, who only has thousandths of that, or less. We the voters have to take the lead, through our federal enterprise.
People on the street have no idea what our wealth is, when I ask them. I've given you the one page summary of <uswealthclock.com> , at a book signing, but it clearly didn't register. It's about $6 Trillion higher since then, btw. Trillions. No reaction, blank, is typical. For ten years I've given it to everyone from the excellent Senator Jeff Merkley, to you, to the excellent Congressman Jared Huffman, to Reid Hoffman by mail, Eric Schmidt by mail, to everyone at MSNBC by mail. To Professor Bill Rodgers of the Institute for Economic Equity at the St Louis Fed. To Ali Velshi, in person. To many, many more leaders. I sent a telegram - a telegram ! the old fashioned kind ! - to Rachel Maddow. Expensive. Nada. A singing telegram company in Manhattan declined, reluctantly, saying they would never be allowed anywhere near the MSNBC offices. Man.
$150 Trillion is pivotal, it's comprehensive, it is eye opening. It is tabulated and published every quarter, by a benchmark organization in the banking world, in human history, the United States Federal Reserve. That total has grown about $70 Trillion in the ten years I have been aware and telling leaders about it. Our federal obligations have grown about $17 Trillion in that time. The New York Times reported that about $84 Trillion will be given to heirs in the next 20 years, in a stunning reversal of the usual program, which otherwise buries such massive numbers. These numbers are related, or should be: $151T net wealth, $35T obligations, $70T growth, $17T deficit, $84T inheritance.
Billion-heirs, and million-heirs. Is that what it meant to throw down monarchy? Or have we once again recreated a monarchy, a money-archy, that we are not allowed to hold to account in the mainstream? We can find a middle way that continues great wealth, while investing in everyone in our country and ensuring life, liberty, and prosperity for the overwhelming majority of our people, instead of about half, or maybe a third.
What does it mean? To me, number one, it means that when Rs screech on the floor of our House that 'we are broke,' 'we are insolvent,' 'we are bankrupt' we have to yell and protest and make their lie known. It's traitorous. That has started yet again. Mike Johnson, somehow the Speaker, is reported to not have a checking account. He is reported to have some very odd, we could say weird, ideas about the world, through his own quotes and statements. He is reported to have made many efforts to install the failed former guy despite all advice and his sworn duty. Worse, he was not elected. He is running unopposed again. Unopposed!
We, the People, are well-to-do. We have $1.1 million per household, on the average. For perspective, $2 million is a lifetime of money in most of this country, and $3 million is in the rest. $2M is $80K a year without working, in rural areas, and $3M is $120K a year in urban areas, by the venerable proven 4% rule. Not rich? Tell that to a working person, tell it to a median household struggling, striving, and grinding out the median $80K a year for a family of four.
And it also means that we are heading, in the next 20 years, to a place where the average household net wealth in the USA will be on the order of a lifetime of money. There is a topic for some philosophy.
Number two, it means that billionaires are not the boss of us. We better start acting like t.
If Elon liquidated his wealth just before jumping on a rocket to Mars, it shouldn't ripple our markets.
His $200+/- Billion is not even 2 thousandths of our wealth. Not even! And for the rest, it is all the more true. It takes about $15 million net wealth to be counted in the top 1%.
We, the People, have the wealth to invest in our welfare and our futures, across the country, from the poorest to the richest. Making the poor richer is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than making the rich richer, or the rest of us. And it would have wonderful ripple effects, especially if it was paired with making the whole bottom half of our households wealthy and healthy. That's only $3-4 Trillion in current net wealth.
If you pay a working family a dollar, a rich guy gets it almost immediately. So rich guys should be spending all of their time finding ways to pay working families. If you give a rich guy a tax break, he will just take the money and run. It makes them lazy. They said so themselves. About poor people, but . . . people.
There's a lot of work to do. We got a start with the 'inflation reduction act' at $1 Trillion. We could well afford the Bernie-Pelosi-Biden plan at $500 Billion per year, with a wealth tax. It passed the House, but missed in the Senate by 2 D votes and all R votes. 2 votes! &%*$^#*! Imagine.
Renters pay wealth tax every month on somebody else's wealth, homeowners pay wealth tax ( in our case, half is the bank's wealth ), the wealthiest people don't pay wealth tax in any sane accounting.
Elizabeth Warren and others have advocated a wealth tax. 1-2% Good. But they don't / won't report our wealth. It's not a secret, though I believe that an audit of the wealthiest 20% of our households would reveal much more net wealth, not less.
What does this mean?
It's opportunity, and prosperity, for all, just waiting to get started.
You asked about billionaires investing in new opportunities to make the world a better place. We have the billionaires -- now we need to invest in prosperity for all, which will create markets we can't anticipate. Apple wasn't created by zillionaires, Microsoft wasn't, Google wasn't, Canva wasn't.
Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. 1776. 2026 is coming fast -- b.rad
ps yes this is too long, I wrote it, I'm posting it ! Thanks again for your work.
Guy,I’ve been reflecting on some of these issues over the last few months, particularly after seeing SaaS companies push out good employees to make room for connections tied to VCs. It became clear that making those at the top rich after an acquisition often took priority over customer satisfaction.
As I search for my next role, I’m seriously considering leaving behind 30 years of software industry experience to pursue purpose-driven work. However, finding the right opportunity has been challenging.
By the way, we worked together on a software industry event back in 1995, and I’ve followed your work ever since.
We don’t always have to create stuff to make the world a better place. We can find other avenues especially if you are not a creative. There are ways to serve the community with our time and/or money to improve our small slice of the world.
This is where Community Health Centers continue to shine. Proudly making our dents in the world daily, one whole person, one life-changing experience at a time. Thanks Guy.
When I first started working in tech, everyone got some amount of stock options from the receptionist to the CEO, and departments like support nd manufacturing were actually on site. Post dot.com bust it started to change.
To me the gig economy signaled an effort to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands. I remember when I reached my limit: When Wag got a billion dollar valuation I wondered why all the "greatest minds" in Silicon Valley were focused on apps that made life a teensy bit more convenient for other privileged people (and sometimes killing traditional channels for community connection in so doing) and what happened to really wanting to innovate to make the world a better place?
We didn't really learn the lessons of the dot com bust, we just found a way to move more of the expenses off the P&L.
I am updating my business planning book with a supplement addressing the Triple Bottom Line (profit, environment and social responsibility). Your post got me thinking "Where does innovation fit?"
Part of me wants to say that innovation fits everywhere, and perhaps innovation is a high-level, personal "value" that you either choose or you ignore.
Is there anyone who would like to weigh in or have other insights or opinion?
Well, here's one opinion: Innovation that *doesn't* integrate social responsibility isn't really innovative. People have been pursuing extractive and/or exploitative "progress" for centuries.
You're making a really great point. It's a truly innovative idea if it doesn't integrate social responsibility. Like you said, extractive and exploitative progress is progress for certain parties and countries, and still exploitative for others. Thank you for sharing your POV!
Thanks Guy - Writing about it eloquently, from a Wise Guy like you, helps. Can't believe how much you crank out, and how consistently.
That said, there are some benchmark points that keep getting buried.
The billionaires we hear most about have a maximum of $100-250 billion. Immense. But not.
We the People, on the other hand, have $150 Trillion in net household wealth. Net. <uswealthclock.com> -- source links US Fed. Heard about that ? No ? It's published. Quarterly. But.
Numbers matter. And they can help us, we need good numbers at the ready to plan and compare plans. We have $150 Trillion - with a T - compared to any billionaire, who only has thousandths of that, or less. We the voters have to take the lead, through our federal enterprise.
People on the street have no idea what our wealth is, when I ask them. I've given you the one page summary of <uswealthclock.com> , at a book signing, but it clearly didn't register. It's about $6 Trillion higher since then, btw. Trillions. No reaction, blank, is typical. For ten years I've given it to everyone from the excellent Senator Jeff Merkley, to you, to the excellent Congressman Jared Huffman, to Reid Hoffman by mail, Eric Schmidt by mail, to everyone at MSNBC by mail. To Professor Bill Rodgers of the Institute for Economic Equity at the St Louis Fed. To Ali Velshi, in person. To many, many more leaders. I sent a telegram - a telegram ! the old fashioned kind ! - to Rachel Maddow. Expensive. Nada. A singing telegram company in Manhattan declined, reluctantly, saying they would never be allowed anywhere near the MSNBC offices. Man.
$150 Trillion is pivotal, it's comprehensive, it is eye opening. It is tabulated and published every quarter, by a benchmark organization in the banking world, in human history, the United States Federal Reserve. That total has grown about $70 Trillion in the ten years I have been aware and telling leaders about it. Our federal obligations have grown about $17 Trillion in that time. The New York Times reported that about $84 Trillion will be given to heirs in the next 20 years, in a stunning reversal of the usual program, which otherwise buries such massive numbers. These numbers are related, or should be: $151T net wealth, $35T obligations, $70T growth, $17T deficit, $84T inheritance.
Billion-heirs, and million-heirs. Is that what it meant to throw down monarchy? Or have we once again recreated a monarchy, a money-archy, that we are not allowed to hold to account in the mainstream? We can find a middle way that continues great wealth, while investing in everyone in our country and ensuring life, liberty, and prosperity for the overwhelming majority of our people, instead of about half, or maybe a third.
What does it mean? To me, number one, it means that when Rs screech on the floor of our House that 'we are broke,' 'we are insolvent,' 'we are bankrupt' we have to yell and protest and make their lie known. It's traitorous. That has started yet again. Mike Johnson, somehow the Speaker, is reported to not have a checking account. He is reported to have some very odd, we could say weird, ideas about the world, through his own quotes and statements. He is reported to have made many efforts to install the failed former guy despite all advice and his sworn duty. Worse, he was not elected. He is running unopposed again. Unopposed!
We, the People, are well-to-do. We have $1.1 million per household, on the average. For perspective, $2 million is a lifetime of money in most of this country, and $3 million is in the rest. $2M is $80K a year without working, in rural areas, and $3M is $120K a year in urban areas, by the venerable proven 4% rule. Not rich? Tell that to a working person, tell it to a median household struggling, striving, and grinding out the median $80K a year for a family of four.
And it also means that we are heading, in the next 20 years, to a place where the average household net wealth in the USA will be on the order of a lifetime of money. There is a topic for some philosophy.
Number two, it means that billionaires are not the boss of us. We better start acting like t.
If Elon liquidated his wealth just before jumping on a rocket to Mars, it shouldn't ripple our markets.
His $200+/- Billion is not even 2 thousandths of our wealth. Not even! And for the rest, it is all the more true. It takes about $15 million net wealth to be counted in the top 1%.
We, the People, have the wealth to invest in our welfare and our futures, across the country, from the poorest to the richest. Making the poor richer is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than making the rich richer, or the rest of us. And it would have wonderful ripple effects, especially if it was paired with making the whole bottom half of our households wealthy and healthy. That's only $3-4 Trillion in current net wealth.
If you pay a working family a dollar, a rich guy gets it almost immediately. So rich guys should be spending all of their time finding ways to pay working families. If you give a rich guy a tax break, he will just take the money and run. It makes them lazy. They said so themselves. About poor people, but . . . people.
There's a lot of work to do. We got a start with the 'inflation reduction act' at $1 Trillion. We could well afford the Bernie-Pelosi-Biden plan at $500 Billion per year, with a wealth tax. It passed the House, but missed in the Senate by 2 D votes and all R votes. 2 votes! &%*$^#*! Imagine.
Renters pay wealth tax every month on somebody else's wealth, homeowners pay wealth tax ( in our case, half is the bank's wealth ), the wealthiest people don't pay wealth tax in any sane accounting.
Elizabeth Warren and others have advocated a wealth tax. 1-2% Good. But they don't / won't report our wealth. It's not a secret, though I believe that an audit of the wealthiest 20% of our households would reveal much more net wealth, not less.
What does this mean?
It's opportunity, and prosperity, for all, just waiting to get started.
You asked about billionaires investing in new opportunities to make the world a better place. We have the billionaires -- now we need to invest in prosperity for all, which will create markets we can't anticipate. Apple wasn't created by zillionaires, Microsoft wasn't, Google wasn't, Canva wasn't.
Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. 1776. 2026 is coming fast -- b.rad
ps yes this is too long, I wrote it, I'm posting it ! Thanks again for your work.
Guy,I’ve been reflecting on some of these issues over the last few months, particularly after seeing SaaS companies push out good employees to make room for connections tied to VCs. It became clear that making those at the top rich after an acquisition often took priority over customer satisfaction.
As I search for my next role, I’m seriously considering leaving behind 30 years of software industry experience to pursue purpose-driven work. However, finding the right opportunity has been challenging.
By the way, we worked together on a software industry event back in 1995, and I’ve followed your work ever since.
We don’t always have to create stuff to make the world a better place. We can find other avenues especially if you are not a creative. There are ways to serve the community with our time and/or money to improve our small slice of the world.
This is where Community Health Centers continue to shine. Proudly making our dents in the world daily, one whole person, one life-changing experience at a time. Thanks Guy.