Realistically speaking, rent seeking is the only way present young and future generations are able to participate in economic "growth" effectively. The human population grows, but the chance to participate in the industries and locations with the highest ROI on human capital does not. In fact, wage stagnation and inflation have stunted ROI on human capital in many non-growth industries in developed countries already.
In fact, in my country where given the current trajectory of public policy I will see a huge net loss in pension benefits despite paying into the system more than any previoius generation in real terms already, without rent seeking through investing, I would literally end up poor as fuck and a slave to the state and would never have a chance to stop working short of just dying.
Rent seeking is how the current system works, get over it.
I don't think one should exclude a viable option for profit, just because of some poor actors.
I think rent can be a beautiful way to earn profit and to connect with people.
If you are earning with rent it doesn't necessarily mean that you're evil and that you're abusing your "customers" with unreasonable demands or unexpected surprises.
Rent seeking is how FAAANG companies make money. Secure the supply chain, low cost and cheap labor, fight right to repair, fight what does it mean to own a streaming movie and then charge exorbitant prices for services.
They exploit people on both sides of their business: consumers and laborers
I find it interesting how many individuals appear to both love and hate FAAANG companies. They love the products but seemingly hate the fact that the companies exist.
Would it not be equally fair to claim that both consumers and laborers also "exploit" FAAANG companies to their own benefit? Take Amazon as a single example - if not for the Amazon fulfilment centers, where else would these workers find employment? And if the claim is that it's such a terrible work environment, why not work somewhere else? Fact is, they are employed there of their own volition so clearly there must be some advantage over potential alternatives. Comparing Amazon to a hypothetical "perfect" employer is a straw man, a more fair comparison is to existing alternatives (including unemployment).
Would it not be fair to also suggest that Amazon has, directly and indirectly, contributed to raising more people out of poverty than any other company in history? They have opened the global supply chain to everyday consumers on a massive scale. Because of this, one can now buy a 65" flat screen television for $500 USD - a price point within reach of many low income households and no longer considered a luxury purchase. And the factories where these are made are paying much higher wages in much better working conditions than existed previously. And they are continuously improving.
Or consider AWS - this alone has enabled countless startups to succeed with virtually no upfront infrastructure costs. If AWS disappeared tomorrow, how many HN readers' jobs would be in serious trouble. How many newly minted millionaires owe their success, in some small part, to the services that AWS provides?
The point is, this is a give and take situation. Sure FAAANG companies make money. Because we give it to them, voluntarily, because we have decided that the benefits they bring to us are worth more than the cash we exchange for it.
If one has an issue with how any of these companies conduct themselves, the obvious response is to take your business elsewhere. If enough people agree, the business will adjust or a competitor will take its place.
I don't personally care much for companies making it impossible to repair their products, but I'm also of the opinion that I can vote with my feet and with my money to help change that.
>Fact is, they are employed there of their own volition so clearly there must be some advantage over potential alternatives.
There was a good article on HN a few weeks back that interviewed people in Amazon’s warehouses as the union debate heated up in the US. What struck me was that many were there because they didn’t have other options. Some were previously working very middle class jobs which no longer existed because they were outsourced and now were making much, much less because there were no good alternatives. People choosing the lesser of two evils doesn’t make for a compelling argument for the virtues of them acting out of their own volition. And that globalization that brought about that point may very well have lifted others elsewhere out of poverty but it seems to conflict with the article’s claim about non-zero sum wealth generation.
>In the brick and mortar stores that wouldn't have closed if Amazon wasn't there.
This seems unlikely, online shopping is far too convenient and provides far too much value for brick and mortar stores to compete. However, that's not to say that these stores necessarily went out of business. A savvy proprietor would see the writing on the wall and move their operations online.
>Because Amazon destroyed these somewhere elses.
Why Amazon? Would it also not be fair to say that consumers destroyed the somewhere elses by shopping online instead of on main street?
>This decision is wrong though. Humans are pretty bad at taking externalities into account.
That's the thing about freedom - when people are free to make their own decisions, one must accept that they may occasionally make (to some observers) irrational or counterproductive decisions. That does not mean that removing said freedoms is an acceptable solution.
>You can't when existing players use their established position as a way to prevent new players from entering the market.
This statement holds. Anti-competitive behaviour is counterproductive and should be discouraged because it has a negative impact on the free market.
Are you speaking on behalf of the entire HN community? I didn't realize we all spoke with one voice.
If anything, the HN groupthink is counterproductive. I find that the true value of the HN community is the diversity of the voices and opinions here, not what "all of HN" thinks, which is not always correct (and often not).
But as you can see from the responses to the GP comment, many nonzero people on HN think and believe the contrary.
So, the comment attempts to impose on the reader the perception that any contrary belief to what the commentary implies is a "normal HN opinion" is something that should not be held with credibility.
It's counterproductive to say that some non-zero group of people on HN believe something when a possibly equal or greater non-zero group believe something to the contrary. It makes me wonder if the point of the comment is to suppress contrary positions.
Depends on what you mean by "value," I guess, but it seems to me that being an effective participant in market economy is impossible without bringing some kind of value to the table (if only indirectly or as a side effect).
I don’t think so. Somebody once had to build the houses that they were collecting rent on. Time passes and what used to be value added becomes a simple matter of capital invested or inherited.
There are different levels of rent seeking. For example I don't think there's anything wrong with loaning money for people who will use it to start a productive business.
There's a lot wrong with corruption, where laws and politicians are bought with money. There's a lot of wrong with regulatory capture, where market regulation is distorted in a way that makes competition against the status quo next to impossible.
“Rent seeking” has a specific technical meaning, which is not the same as “collecting rent”. Most SaaS companies are by no means rent seeking, and in fact it’s hard for me to come up with an example of one that does it.
Sorta. But their real m/o ("value add") is they aggressively purchase the "fruit" (best seats) which pushes out regular market-price buyers. Then hold. Then sell at 5x to 120x list price. Its a game, similar to equities but perishable. Their only real service is standing in line in front of you to corner and add pressure.
