And I have answered the question repeatedly. What they provide is money. If you don't see how that warrants equity then you don't understand what equity is... Labor has nothing to do with it. They aren't providing labor, they are providing capital. They have equity because they bought the equity...

What you are saying is equivalent to "why does the guy who paid to have a house built for his family have all the equity in the house? He didn't do any labor to build it. It should be the construction workers' house."

You have to just be being purposefully dense at this point. Or a troll. I refuse to believe that someone can make all of these comments that you're making while genuinely trying to argue in good faith... Think that's my cue to stop trying to have a conversation with you.

What do you mean contribute in what way? They literally directly provide the money without which the company can't exist. Acting like capital isn't just as important as labor to a company is either painfully misinformed or just plain silly... And I don't thunk you need me to describe the things we have today that serfs didn't have. Keynesian economics saying that productivity increases with technology doesn't mean that it doesn't still require more labor to create more things...

The more you say the more it sounds like you don't really unset this topic as well as you seem to think you do, and that you're one of those people who thinks that watching some YouTube videos and reading a few articles makes you an economics expert.

You're acting like labor is the only thing of value to a company or to the production of something. It isn't. If one buy spends $10 million on factory equipment then hires people to run it, then he has contributed just as much (if not significantly more) than the people working the machines...

And acting like we don't work more than serfs because we have more stuff is just silly. Money basically just allows you to take the product of work in one area and exchange it for the product of work in another area. Serfs had to have food and a shack with no power, water, etc. If that was all we had to pay for today it wouldn't take nearly as much work. If you're working and buying it with money instead of building and farming it yourself, you're basically having to do enough work to exchange with the builders and the farmers for the product of their work... Today you're having to do enough to exchange with the builders, and the farmers, and the power company, and the water company, and the people making your phones, and the people running the cell towers, and the people building cars, and on and on and on... More things consumed or used by definitely requires more work to create.

I've seen people turn that one around later in life than that for sure. I've got a coworker who was broke at 31 making less than minimum wage at at Applebees with no friends or family, and at 37 he's making probably literally 15-20x more money and lives in this massive 6,500 sq ft Tudor with his smoking wife and 2 kids with a third on the way. And he didn't even go back to school or anything.

Hell, even my paycheck is determined by how well I do compared to my coworkers

I'm definitely not naive on that topic

So you ask for sources, then throw out some juvenile nonsense when presented with them. Yeah, definitely done bothering with you.

It's not hard information to find. From a super cursory Google search pulling up the Funding of Science page on Wikipedia: "According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), more than 60% of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government."... The International Science Council says that "The private sector’s share of global science and innovation is growing, and is now estimated to represent approximately 70 per cent of global expenditure on science.". Source...

It's really not a disputable fact.

Yes. Unequivocally. The fact that you apparently don't means that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and there isn't any point even responding to you anymore.

Certainly not investors, who's contribution takes place before the scientists', and without which the scientists' contribution couldn't exist.

I don't think you understand what the word "middleman" means.

That whole comment just screams that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

Obviously not. You don't have to be a scientist to contribute to science though

> They do not contribute to science.

They literally directly fund it

They are usually the people funding something, which is definitely needed as well

I don't know about this one. The fact that knowledge can be owned in the form of IP, patents, trade secrets, etc is the only reason that a lot of progress that gets made in the first place. It's not like it was a century ago where major scientific breakthroughs can be made left and right in your garage. They require multimillion dollar labs and sometimes billions in resources, that frequently wouldn't exist if the results of the study couldn't be protected by IP laws.

That BS works for more than enough people to make a post worthwhile.

This always gets me. I'm up at 4:45 to go to the gym, then shower, get dressed, and eat breakfast up at the club too, where the men's locker room and lounge are literally underground. So it's night when I wake up, and when the sun is coming up I'm underground with no windows so can't see it. It threw my mornings off for like a year before I finally got used to it.

It's hard to say with hindsight being 20/20 and all and survivor bias coming in to play. Knowing what I know now, that it did work out and end up being worth it, yeah I'd do things the same. If it was a matter of doing that today though, when I have more responsibilities and have kids on the way that I want to spend time with instead of being a workaholic, I can't say that I would make the same decision today. So I'm glad that I did it between 20 and 30 and would do it again, but can't say that I'd do it between 30 and 40.

There is honestly something to be said for both, and neither is right or wrong depending on what you really want and what your goals are...

I definitely haven't been of the "slow down and enjoy it" people. Most of my 20s when I wasn't in school I was working anywhere between 70 and 100 hour weeks, making every penny that I could, every connection that I could, and getting a side gig going on top of my time in the office. Definitely wouldn't say it was enjoyable, didn't get to see my wife nearly as much as I'd have liked, was perpetually sleep deprived and constantly had stress levels that were through the roof... I'm in my early 30s now though, and keeping up an insane pace in my 20s made it where now my 30s are significantly more enjoyable than they would have been otherwise. Have a nice house, lake house, get to take good vacations, have kids on the way and know we'll be able to take care if them, send them to good schools, etc. Plus my job situation in my 20s being brutal set it up to be great in my 30s onward, and all the driving myself crazy to get a side gig going then has it where now it's running super smoothly and I can make a good bit of money from it while just coasting...

So yeah, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking things slow and at your own speed, but some goals and things you want can require that you don't. And sacrificing in the present can definitely be worth the future that it allows.

It's absolutely nuts to me that he has kept going as hard as he does at his age. Seems like he must literally want to die on a halfpipe. Especially for someone like him it seems like there are much better ways to stay close to your passion without leaving your teenager without a dad.

> This is a good rule for certain types of work or circumstances. Two that come easily to mind are negotiators and magicians.

I was about to say this. I'm in finance and sales and half my job is negotiating. If I'm not careful with what information I keep close to my chest I suck at my job ha

I didn't say otherwise. I said you had to take care of yourself first

If you don't look out for your own interests you'll have a hard time looking out for anybody else's. Like how you put your own oxygen mask on first before putting one on your kid.