10 ms·

No one's shaming him for not doing something better. They're shaming him for having a direct role in creating the problem this charity is supposed to resolve.

yeukhon 8y ago
Isn’t this “problem created by” anyone who is rich then?
- moises_silva 8y ago
  And conveniently the definition of 'rich' for almost everyone is anyone who has more money than me.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  You certainly would not have to look very hard to find people who would argue that
- selimnairb 8y ago
  Yes. We should tax billionaires out of existence. This level of wealth and power accumulation is as unseemly as it is dangerous to our democracy and economy.
  - stass 8y ago
    Taking other people money by force is even more dangerous for democracy and economy.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea means we shouldn't have any government at all.
      - chillacy 8y ago
        Not sure if that’s the line of reasoning. A well known danger of democracy is rule by mob. For instance a tough thing to get right is protecting rights of minority groups. If everyone voted for their own direct benefit, we’d just be locking minorities up and taking their assets with power of the majority. Luckily doesn’t seem to happen much.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        If the government taking things by force, or by the implied threat of force, is bad, then taxation is bad, and if you don't have any kind of taxation you don't have a government in any meaningful sense.
        chillacy 8y ago
        I think taxes are a bit better because you're also agreeing to pay your own money (vs only taking other people's money only as the original commenter said). I had a different reading of "taking other people's money by force" as meaning specifically voting to tax a minority group more just because you can. This is based on the GP comment being "We should tax billionaires out of existence" as opposed to "taxes are immoral" OP can clarify if necessary.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        That isn't taxing a "minority group." It's just progressive taxation, an idea almost everyone accepts to some extent. "Taxing billionaires out of existence" could be achieved simply by increasing marginal tax rates.
        leetcrew 8y ago
        billionaires are literally a minority group. they certainly don't need protected status, but, whether or not it is "good" to take their money, they can't effectively oppose this just by voting.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  You could make that argument as well, but I'm specifically talking about Amazon's underpayment of workers and efforts to kill taxes that would fund efforts meant to curb homelessness, among other things. Some of the other replies to my comment have links to articles about these.
NeonVice 8y ago
How is Amazon creating more homeless people?
- emodendroket 8y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/how-a... In case you don't care to read an article they're just coming off an effort to kill a tax that would have affected them and which was specifically designed to combat homelessness.
- olivermarks 8y ago
  By centralizing giant swathes of the consumption economy to run through Amazon, destroying jobs at every step of the way. Sweden have banned Amazon so their local economies can flourish. I think this is good macro business logic for a nation state. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-amazon-competition-ecommerce/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-amazon-competition-ec...
  - Aunche 8y ago
    So Amazon gets credit for killing jobs, but no credit for creating jobs? Without a doubt Ikea has killed the small time furniture making industry, yet is listed as a "charity."
  - chillacy 8y ago
    My own company has been slowly getting killed by amazon in the past 10 years, but we’ve also killed countless brick and mortar stores along the way. Where will we draw the line? Are we to fight the newfound efficiencies of technologies like the Luddites?
  - opencl 8y ago
    Sweden did not ban Amazon. Amazon just doesn't operate in Sweden (yet). People in Sweden can already buy things from the other EU Amazon stores.
moises_silva 8y ago
So shame on them as opposed to most of society that has an indirect role and we therefore are not part of the problem? Society keeps buying things from Amazon. We as society created Amazon. I don't have a lot of sympathy for big corporations but also dislike when individuals try to disproportionally blame them without taking a look at what we do at an individual level to make a difference. By almost any standard I'd consider the average HN'er 'rich' (myself included) and benefiting of the same conditions that are in some way also responsible for the same problem (tech bubble, big tech corporations) Amazon is allegedly guilty of.
sdinsn 8y ago
Let's not pretend that homelessness has nothing to do with addiction and mental health. Stop avoiding the real issues- it's harmful when everyone pins Washington's problems all on Bezos.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Who's pretending that? I said Bezos and Amazon play a direct role in creating poverty and homelessness, not that they alone are culpable; obviously there are many factors. Let's also not pretend that homelessness has nothing to do with our economy and political systems.

yeukhon 8y ago

Isn’t this “problem created by” anyone who is rich then?

moises_silva 8y ago
And conveniently the definition of 'rich' for almost everyone is anyone who has more money than me.
emodendroket 8y ago
You certainly would not have to look very hard to find people who would argue that
selimnairb 8y ago
Yes. We should tax billionaires out of existence. This level of wealth and power accumulation is as unseemly as it is dangerous to our democracy and economy.
- stass 8y ago
  Taking other people money by force is even more dangerous for democracy and economy.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea means we shouldn't have any government at all.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      Not sure if that’s the line of reasoning. A well known danger of democracy is rule by mob. For instance a tough thing to get right is protecting rights of minority groups. If everyone voted for their own direct benefit, we’d just be locking minorities up and taking their assets with power of the majority. Luckily doesn’t seem to happen much.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        If the government taking things by force, or by the implied threat of force, is bad, then taxation is bad, and if you don't have any kind of taxation you don't have a government in any meaningful sense.
        chillacy 8y ago
        I think taxes are a bit better because you're also agreeing to pay your own money (vs only taking other people's money only as the original commenter said). I had a different reading of "taking other people's money by force" as meaning specifically voting to tax a minority group more just because you can. This is based on the GP comment being "We should tax billionaires out of existence" as opposed to "taxes are immoral" OP can clarify if necessary.
        emodendroket 8y ago
        That isn't taxing a "minority group." It's just progressive taxation, an idea almost everyone accepts to some extent. "Taxing billionaires out of existence" could be achieved simply by increasing marginal tax rates.
        leetcrew 8y ago
        billionaires are literally a minority group. they certainly don't need protected status, but, whether or not it is "good" to take their money, they can't effectively oppose this just by voting.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
You could make that argument as well, but I'm specifically talking about Amazon's underpayment of workers and efforts to kill taxes that would fund efforts meant to curb homelessness, among other things. Some of the other replies to my comment have links to articles about these.

NeonVice 8y ago

How is Amazon creating more homeless people?

emodendroket 8y ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/how-a... In case you don't care to read an article they're just coming off an effort to kill a tax that would have affected them and which was specifically designed to combat homelessness.
olivermarks 8y ago
By centralizing giant swathes of the consumption economy to run through Amazon, destroying jobs at every step of the way. Sweden have banned Amazon so their local economies can flourish. I think this is good macro business logic for a nation state. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-amazon-competition-ecommerce/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-amazon-competition-ec...
- Aunche 8y ago
  So Amazon gets credit for killing jobs, but no credit for creating jobs? Without a doubt Ikea has killed the small time furniture making industry, yet is listed as a "charity."
- chillacy 8y ago
  My own company has been slowly getting killed by amazon in the past 10 years, but we’ve also killed countless brick and mortar stores along the way. Where will we draw the line? Are we to fight the newfound efficiencies of technologies like the Luddites?
- opencl 8y ago
  Sweden did not ban Amazon. Amazon just doesn't operate in Sweden (yet). People in Sweden can already buy things from the other EU Amazon stores.

moises_silva 8y ago

So shame on them as opposed to most of society that has an indirect role and we therefore are not part of the problem? Society keeps buying things from Amazon. We as society created Amazon. I don't have a lot of sympathy for big corporations but also dislike when individuals try to disproportionally blame them without taking a look at what we do at an individual level to make a difference. By almost any standard I'd consider the average HN'er 'rich' (myself included) and benefiting of the same conditions that are in some way also responsible for the same problem (tech bubble, big tech corporations) Amazon is allegedly guilty of.

sdinsn 8y ago

Let's not pretend that homelessness has nothing to do with addiction and mental health. Stop avoiding the real issues- it's harmful when everyone pins Washington's problems all on Bezos.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
Who's pretending that? I said Bezos and Amazon play a direct role in creating poverty and homelessness, not that they alone are culpable; obviously there are many factors. Let's also not pretend that homelessness has nothing to do with our economy and political systems.