6 ms·

Looks like this was cheaper than upping the salaries of warehouse workers to get them off food stamps and provide healthcare. For Bezos this is just another cal

Looks like this was cheaper than upping the salaries of warehouse workers to get them off food stamps and provide healthcare. For Bezos this is just another calculation, nothing more.

CodeSheikh 8y ago
Another problem for another thread. This will not silence the critics of salary issues at Aamzon warehouse. Give it a few weeks and you will read it for yourself in the news.
ericd 8y ago
One would be using Amazon's money and would affect Amazon's ability to continue growing and employing more people, the other is using Bezos' money, and does not, except by maybe affecting the share price as he sells more of his holdings. They're not the same thing.
- noisy_boy 8y ago
  If that is the case, nothing stops him from creating a Bezos Amazon foundation and making every Amazon employee below a certain salary threshold eligible for grants/help etc etc. With all the accounting jugglery they have access to, I'm sure there are multiple ways to making the employees financially happier while satisfying the shareholders thirst for squeezing the last drop from the last penny.
  - ericd 8y ago
    I've never heard of any precedent, do you know of one? In any case, why should Bezos use his personal money to improve Amazon workers' salaries vs. trying to fix a problem for needier people who don't have a job at all? Or trying to make humanity a space faring species (which he spends $1B/year on, IIRC)?
    - noisy_boy 8y ago
      Why should there be expectation of precedent? Isn't he supposed to be a pioneer (like doing things such as trying to make humanity a space faring species)? Also, charity begins at home and Amazon is his home.
      - ericd 8y ago
        Because usually when you're proposing something new, it's good to ask yourself why it hasn't been done before, or why it's not currently being done, if it has been tried. Oftentimes, there are very good reasons. Very occasionally, there's not.
asdkhadsj 8y ago
It is really frustrating when a man makes that much and does so little. Like, I don't think/know if it should be law. I'm not talking about being Robinhood with our taxes or whatever. I don't know any of that. All I know is it's frustrating. Look at all the good Gates is working towards. There's just so much room for people with that much wealth to strive for. Honestly.. I think what's most frustrating is I can't even imagine what you even do with that much money, aside from watch it get bigger, if not helping people. These people have so much money that they can't even spend it. Short of trying to personally buy a company or a country, there's just nothing you could spend it on.. it grows too fast. So it's frustrating that the human condition so easily falls towards hoarding. And yes, I'm largely ignoring the idea of liquidity, but for this discussion I think we can.
- zouhair 8y ago
  That's the charity of Kings. The French king gave a lot to charity with one hand and created a lot more misery with the other. This is just the return of the times of charity.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    That's the charity of Kings. The French king gave a lot to charity with one hand and created a lot more misery with the other. This is just the return of the times of charity. You’d think people would remember how that worked out for the French royalty, but I guess it’s always “going to be different this time.”
    - zouhair 8y ago
      It's a matter of perspective. You can see a thing from afar and know what it is, but when you are in it, it is extremely hard to give it a name.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Surely a few people in the French aristocracy knew they were sitting on a time bomb. But nobody had the will, the skill, and the charisma to defuse the damned thing.
mc32 8y ago
That’s very possible. Altho this is from his own money and not the corp. Though I agree he should try and follow the example of CostCo and maybe outdo them and set an even better example.
asdfman123 8y ago
I feel people like Jeff Bezos, who already have all the money in the world, are more interested in winning/power and money is only a way of keeping score. Bezos is probably interested in growing Amazon into the biggest business in the world, and part of that strategy is cutting costs to the bone. What I'm trying to say is he's looking for a way to maximize Amazon's growth rate, not necessarily pinch pennies (pinch billions?). So if he can preserve his current strategy by giving a few billion away, I don't think he cares.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  That is contradictory. If money is how he keeps score than he isn't going to give any way.
  - syn0byte 8y ago
    Not at all; He already scored. He already got the headlines. Whatever he does with it after the fact makes little difference.
    - quickben 8y ago
      People think they have it scored when they make 10m, but some still don't stop. The game at his level of scoring includes different variables in the profit equation. He has to worry if poor people repoduce enough, is the overall population growth expanding, etc. He "scored" really doesn't apply. I was told once that if you are a business, either the grow, or die.
  - gramstrong 8y ago
    Sometimes you give up a Queen to get to the King :/
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      or in this case a 1/10th of a pawn.
  - 8y ago
amadeuspagel 8y ago
Bezos owns 16.4% of Amazon. Donating $ 2 Billions of his own money costs him about as much as donating $ 12 Billions of Amazon's money, which would likely result in him getting replaced.
standerman 8y ago
How can you presume to know his thought process, intentions, and goals?
refurb 8y ago
I don’t get the concern around people using govt assistance when they have a low paying job. Would it have been better if those jobs were never created and those same people were on full welfare payments?
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  There is a flawed assumption -that the jobs were created by it in the first place. Jobs exist from demand and the best way to do them. While labor cost influences the approach the demand creates the job. Essentially it is revenue spent on what would have been done anyway to help get the already well off for no lasting benefit. Worse it incentives lower paid jobs by passing off some of their payroll. If jobs are being made solely through and for subsidies they are better off doing it directly usually. If they automate more things from the rules change? Mission accomplished - we have more productive work, more private investment in research and development, and technology marches forward and people can do more productive things with their time.

Looks like this was cheaper than upping the salaries of warehouse workers to get them off food stamps and provide healthcare. For Bezos this is just another calculation, nothing more.

CodeSheikh 8y ago

Another problem for another thread. This will not silence the critics of salary issues at Aamzon warehouse. Give it a few weeks and you will read it for yourself in the news.

ericd 8y ago

One would be using Amazon's money and would affect Amazon's ability to continue growing and employing more people, the other is using Bezos' money, and does not, except by maybe affecting the share price as he sells more of his holdings. They're not the same thing.

noisy_boy 8y ago
If that is the case, nothing stops him from creating a Bezos Amazon foundation and making every Amazon employee below a certain salary threshold eligible for grants/help etc etc. With all the accounting jugglery they have access to, I'm sure there are multiple ways to making the employees financially happier while satisfying the shareholders thirst for squeezing the last drop from the last penny.
- ericd 8y ago
  I've never heard of any precedent, do you know of one? In any case, why should Bezos use his personal money to improve Amazon workers' salaries vs. trying to fix a problem for needier people who don't have a job at all? Or trying to make humanity a space faring species (which he spends $1B/year on, IIRC)?
  - noisy_boy 8y ago
    Why should there be expectation of precedent? Isn't he supposed to be a pioneer (like doing things such as trying to make humanity a space faring species)? Also, charity begins at home and Amazon is his home.
    - ericd 8y ago
      Because usually when you're proposing something new, it's good to ask yourself why it hasn't been done before, or why it's not currently being done, if it has been tried. Oftentimes, there are very good reasons. Very occasionally, there's not.

asdkhadsj 8y ago

It is really frustrating when a man makes that much and does so little. Like, I don't think/know if it should be law. I'm not talking about being Robinhood with our taxes or whatever. I don't know any of that. All I know is it's frustrating. Look at all the good Gates is working towards. There's just so much room for people with that much wealth to strive for. Honestly.. I think what's most frustrating is I can't even imagine what you even do with that much money, aside from watch it get bigger, if not helping people. These people have so much money that they can't even spend it. Short of trying to personally buy a company or a country, there's just nothing you could spend it on.. it grows too fast. So it's frustrating that the human condition so easily falls towards hoarding. And yes, I'm largely ignoring the idea of liquidity, but for this discussion I think we can.

zouhair 8y ago
That's the charity of Kings. The French king gave a lot to charity with one hand and created a lot more misery with the other. This is just the return of the times of charity.
- GW150914 8y ago
  That's the charity of Kings. The French king gave a lot to charity with one hand and created a lot more misery with the other. This is just the return of the times of charity. You’d think people would remember how that worked out for the French royalty, but I guess it’s always “going to be different this time.”
  - zouhair 8y ago
    It's a matter of perspective. You can see a thing from afar and know what it is, but when you are in it, it is extremely hard to give it a name.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Surely a few people in the French aristocracy knew they were sitting on a time bomb. But nobody had the will, the skill, and the charisma to defuse the damned thing.

mc32 8y ago

That’s very possible. Altho this is from his own money and not the corp. Though I agree he should try and follow the example of CostCo and maybe outdo them and set an even better example.

asdfman123 8y ago

I feel people like Jeff Bezos, who already have all the money in the world, are more interested in winning/power and money is only a way of keeping score. Bezos is probably interested in growing Amazon into the biggest business in the world, and part of that strategy is cutting costs to the bone. What I'm trying to say is he's looking for a way to maximize Amazon's growth rate, not necessarily pinch pennies (pinch billions?). So if he can preserve his current strategy by giving a few billion away, I don't think he cares.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
That is contradictory. If money is how he keeps score than he isn't going to give any way.
- syn0byte 8y ago
  Not at all; He already scored. He already got the headlines. Whatever he does with it after the fact makes little difference.
  - quickben 8y ago
    People think they have it scored when they make 10m, but some still don't stop. The game at his level of scoring includes different variables in the profit equation. He has to worry if poor people repoduce enough, is the overall population growth expanding, etc. He "scored" really doesn't apply. I was told once that if you are a business, either the grow, or die.
- gramstrong 8y ago
  Sometimes you give up a Queen to get to the King :/
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    or in this case a 1/10th of a pawn.
- 8y ago

amadeuspagel 8y ago

Bezos owns 16.4% of Amazon. Donating $ 2 Billions of his own money costs him about as much as donating $ 12 Billions of Amazon's money, which would likely result in him getting replaced.

standerman 8y ago

How can you presume to know his thought process, intentions, and goals?

refurb 8y ago

I don’t get the concern around people using govt assistance when they have a low paying job. Would it have been better if those jobs were never created and those same people were on full welfare payments?

Nasrudith 8y ago
There is a flawed assumption -that the jobs were created by it in the first place. Jobs exist from demand and the best way to do them. While labor cost influences the approach the demand creates the job. Essentially it is revenue spent on what would have been done anyway to help get the already well off for no lasting benefit. Worse it incentives lower paid jobs by passing off some of their payroll. If jobs are being made solely through and for subsidies they are better off doing it directly usually. If they automate more things from the rules change? Mission accomplished - we have more productive work, more private investment in research and development, and technology marches forward and people can do more productive things with their time.