From the names mentioned, I wonder if the individuals they picked were biased toward people who "the man in the street" might plausibly see as the creators of important and socially valuable things. Vs. wealthy folks who increased prices of vital drugs by 50X, or "looted & flipped" good companies, or just received huge compensation packages for mediocre (or worse) corporate leadership. A quick text search does not find "Sackler" in either the article, or the HN discussion. Nor "Enron". Nor...
back
1 comments
So it's pretty easy to hate on criminals or jackasses, and they do get hated on already, even if they're rich. And we throw them in prison if at all possible under the current laws.
The premise of the article seems to be the disconnect between the feelings the public has for group vs its constituents, when the feeling is positive for each constituent but negative for the group.
Bad billionaires aren't in the group, and I'd argue that people do hate on groups even when they love each and every individual member.