What you are missing is that the resources in the world that matter are bounded. So if a minority is creating most of the value at scale, they will be able to redirect most of the resources to themselves. This drives the increase in inequality.
That is why thinking purely in financial terms is misleading. It's not because everyone has more $$$ in the bank that everyone is better off.
Is it really the case that Jeff Bezos is consuming a million times more finite resources than someone whose net worth is $100k? It seems to me like what you buy with virtually infinite money is status like hanging out or sleeping with celebrities, a seat in important rooms, and assets. There is only so much additional jet fuel and human labor a multi-billionaire can consume.
It is a fair point if the focus is on billionaires (Bezos, Zuck,...). The proportion of resources they consume is well below their wealth. They may even contribute positively to society through charitable causes.
The real issue is that tech/startup founders and workers who, while less rich, accumulate more wealth at scale compare to the rest of society. And given their number, I'm afraid this will have a real impact by greatly increasing inequality. That would be ok if the other part of the population would also be able to live better. But I do not think it will be the case.
I think there’s an interesting and fair argument to make that one negative consequence of billionaires is entire otherwise unproductive economic sectors that exist for no reason other than their vanity (mega yachts, Swiss boarding schools, high fashion, doomsday bunkers). That is a different argument than one about resource hoarding though — a Louis bag doesn’t take much in the way of resources, just a single python in the worst case!
>one negative consequence of billionaires is entire otherwise unproductive economic sectors that exist for no reason other than their vanity
This isn't just relegated to billionaires. Depending on how you define "consumption", up to 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer driven. Now I wouldn't call all this "unproductive" but it's probably selectively unfair to claim only the uber-rich are spending money on items they don't need.
I respectfully but also totally disagree. Value of money in particular is not intrinsic, it comes directly from the ability to redirect resource today (buy a home) and the future (be able to retire comfortably).
People made rich by Google will absolutely be able to redirect more resources to themselves in a world of bounded resources.
I think a lot of founders are idealistic about it and refuse to believe that at scale the start up mentality will increase inequalities. That's PG's point acutally, see the last sentence of his essay: it will. But he doesn't care. I do.
That is why thinking purely in financial terms is misleading. It's not because everyone has more $$$ in the bank that everyone is better off.