4 ms·

Utilitarian question: Can he do more net good spending $2 billion to help the homeless, or spending an equivalent amount to double the take-home pay of warehou

Utilitarian question: Can he do more net good spending $2 billion to help the homeless, or spending an equivalent amount to double the take-home pay of warehouse employees and/or convert the "money towards medical insurance" plan into a company-supplied medical plan? (Follow-up question is "Given he doesn't have plurality control of the stock votes, does he have the authority to do so in a vacuum without getting ejected from his own company?")

ericpauley 8y ago
Amazon has (conservatively) over 500,000 employees. This $2B would cover a pre-tax salary increase of $4000 for one year, which wouldn't come close to doubling take-home pay.
- fixermark 8y ago
  I was thinking specifically of anyone making below $15/hr, not of the entire employee pool. Amazon software engineers, I love you to pieces, but you're capable of negotiating your own salary or leaving the company to pursue other opportunities if you're feeling under-paid. ;)
KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
This fund has way more PR value than just paying his workers a decent amount. The latter creates entitlement and expectation which this avoids as well. I personally have a very dim view of these philanthropic efforts.
DominikPeters 8y ago
The homeless are usually worse-off than people having a job, so by diminishing returns one should expect to be able to help more by spending on the homeless. In addition, if worker pay is increased significantly above market rate, this will plausibly lead to things changing elsewhere to get closer to market clearing, such as via worse working conditions or additional automation or requiring Bachelor's degrees for pickers. While we are being utilitarian, it seems clear that either option is far from optimal, and the money would better be spent on the global poor, or farm animals, or helping future generations.
savanaly 8y ago
Wouldn't it be weird if a direct wealth transfer to group A was preferable to group B where group A is the better-off of the two? That's what you are suggesting, as far as I can tell, where group A is people with jobs at Amazon and group B is homeless people.

ericpauley 8y ago

Amazon has (conservatively) over 500,000 employees. This $2B would cover a pre-tax salary increase of $4000 for one year, which wouldn't come close to doubling take-home pay.

fixermark 8y ago
I was thinking specifically of anyone making below $15/hr, not of the entire employee pool. Amazon software engineers, I love you to pieces, but you're capable of negotiating your own salary or leaving the company to pursue other opportunities if you're feeling under-paid. ;)

KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago

This fund has way more PR value than just paying his workers a decent amount. The latter creates entitlement and expectation which this avoids as well. I personally have a very dim view of these philanthropic efforts.

DominikPeters 8y ago

The homeless are usually worse-off than people having a job, so by diminishing returns one should expect to be able to help more by spending on the homeless. In addition, if worker pay is increased significantly above market rate, this will plausibly lead to things changing elsewhere to get closer to market clearing, such as via worse working conditions or additional automation or requiring Bachelor's degrees for pickers. While we are being utilitarian, it seems clear that either option is far from optimal, and the money would better be spent on the global poor, or farm animals, or helping future generations.

savanaly 8y ago

Wouldn't it be weird if a direct wealth transfer to group A was preferable to group B where group A is the better-off of the two? That's what you are suggesting, as far as I can tell, where group A is people with jobs at Amazon and group B is homeless people.