4 ms·

This was my exact thought when I saw he was donating his money. How about encouraging unions and providing healthcare and better pay?

by Zarath 8y ago

jimmaswell 8y ago
Would you rather he just donate nothing and keep everything else the same, rather than donate? The scrambling to condemn this act of charity doesn't make any sense.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  When Roman emperors were horrible enough, their own Praetorian guard took them out. The rich and powerful get their wealth from the masses and significantly impact the lives of the masses. World leaders need the people more than the people need them. An individual with a hard scrabble subsistence existence is similarly well off whether they have a hut and must hunt for food or live in a trailer and have some shit job. But wealth at the top has increased tremendously as world population has increased. Bezos is not exempt from people getting tired of his crap and he would be wise to listen up and do something more effective.
  - late2part 8y ago
    The rich are well aware of the risk of pitchforks. That’s why this is done.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doo... Articles like the above suggest the rich aren't really aware enough or trying hard enough to avoid a dystopian nightmare future. Their luxuries require a functioning world. Locking themselves away in a bunker like a self imposed prison after they make sure everything goes to hell appears to be their current idiotic plan.
      - nickpsecurity 8y ago
        The leaked Citigroup memos indicate their advisors are telling them about the voter threat if they didn't already know. The response is to pay media to brainwash them into thinking it's a good system where they can become well-off, too. https://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html https://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-pluton... Plus, they give people plenty of distractions to shout at instead of improve their situation. Human nature takes over from there.
        DoreenMichele 8y ago
        If the world comes apart at the seams, it won't matter whether or not the people are sheeple who have all been bamboozled. It will still negatively impact the people at the top creating these problems. It may be "stupidity" rather than malice driving this. What I'm saying is they need to up their game out of enlightened self interest, even if they don't care one bit about the people. If the de facto pie shrinks due to global mismanagement of resources, the richest of the rich have the most to lose.
      - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
        I think the financial crisis taught us that clearly enough. Going on some of the surprised reactions from senior bankers they all appear locked away in their bubbles just as securely as any post-apocalypse bunker. Looking at politics around the world it seems like the world is slowly demonstrating that we learned nothing from the history of the 1930s.
- wholinator2 8y ago
  They're not condemning the act of charity, they're condemning the working conditions he subjects his employees to. Yes, the act of charity is better than nothing but it seems people think that money might be better spent on improving the quality of the jobs he offers from the dismal self-destruction they are famous for. Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display of giving and that treating your workers with human decency would be a selfless act he seems unwilling to do.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    > Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display i mean, he still ends up with less money. he just doesn't get taxed on the money he gives away. one could argue that donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed.
    - bostik 8y ago
      > donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed. Eh? Taxing a corporation less is better than having its employees earn more?
      - leetcrew 8y ago
        I was talking about tax efficiency in that post, not any grand moral claim. although since we're on this topic, I would note that the US already spends as much or more money per grade school student than most of the European countries that we look to as models. this leads me to think that just shoving more tax dollars into the bureaucratic rube goldberg machine might actually be less impactful than a targeted charity effort.
  - brodyprice 8y ago
    So condemn the working conditions of the company then. What does that have to do with his personal act of charity? Sure, charitable donations are tax deductible, but you say that this equates to "...truly the most selfish public display of giving..."? Why is the assumption that a wealthy person is only capable of charity for tax benefits? As if he needs the tax deductions to retain his wealth? As if he personally mistreats employees? Imperfect people are capable of honest charity.
- smhost 8y ago
  The lower class is angry at the billionaires because their working/living conditions are bad. The middle class is angry at the billionaires because they're the ones who end up subsidizing the poor. Bezos dumping money on poor people is not a real solution, because it doesn't address any structural problems.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Would you rather he just donate nothing and keep everything else the same, rather than donate? The scrambling to condemn this act of charity doesn't make any sense. It's not really charity if you have a hand in creating the problem. A thief who pledges to contribute 10% of his loot to help his victims isn't doing good. Likewise a multi-billionaire businessman who employs people at low wages isn't deserving of kudos for setting aside a little of his wealth to help the poor, especially when he could make decisions that would help much more.
  - vixen99 8y ago
    Create a fabulously successful business that puts 350,000 jobs on offer (that didn't exist before Amazon was built), and you're likened to a thief? What in this press release, https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/response-to-senator-sanders/ https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/response-to-senato... - is inaccurate? It would be headline news if it was. Currently it appears that the US is enjoying extremely low unemployment so presumably there are plenty of other jobs around. People can vote with their feet.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > Create a fabulously successful business that puts 350,000 jobs on offer (that didn't exist before Amazon was built), and you're likened to a thief? No, and if you'd read more closely you'd have realized I didn't do that. I merely used a analogy involving a thief that clearly illustrates one characteristic that's relevant here. Analogies don't map one-to-one onto a topic. You really should have gotten it, too, since I didn't just stop at the analogy. I went to apply the concept it was meant to illustrate directly to the situation. Furthermore, the fact that Amazon is a "job creator" doesn't hold it, its labor practices, or the jobs it creates above criticism.
- Zarath 8y ago
  I mean I'm happy he's donating, but why bother with the exploit -> profit -> donate to exploited cycle when it is fully in your power to break it in the first place? I think the reason it is getting flak is that it seems disingenuous considering the massive amount of power he has to improve the lives of his workers.
  - sieabahlpark 8y ago
    Probably because he's trying to improve the roots of poverty than just for his company. To do that unfortunately he needs exploit. It's not great, but if people are dumb enough to still do the jobs at those rates it's not going to change. The wages would go up if all the people actually created a need for them to go up.
Thriptic 8y ago
To play devil's advocate, if Bezos donates two billion, that's basically a one time fixed cost. He can decide not to donate any more money down the line if he chooses. If he raises wages, he will be paying at least that much in labor costs in perpetuity. He can't easily walk back his salary bumps later without enraging his workers. In addition, if he gives people raises, they will be pleased....for about a year. Then people will establish that as the new normal and demand further raises because he capitulated the first time so why not try again.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  That's not what happened at his competitors that invested in workers like Publix and Costco. They were happy enough with their wages and work environment being better than the rest that they stick with the company working hard. The industry has a tracker for customer satisfaction. They're high in it regularly. Your hypothesis didn't play out when management were committed to taking care of employees with a good baseline.
dghughes 8y ago
I'd say Amazon can start with just simply allowing employees to use the bathroom without it affecting their performance target. It seems some employees piss into a bottle while at their work station.

This was my exact thought when I saw he was donating his money. How about encouraging unions and providing healthcare and better pay?

by Zarath 8y ago

This was my exact thought when I saw he was donating his money. How about encouraging unions and providing healthcare and better pay?

jimmaswell 8y ago

Would you rather he just donate nothing and keep everything else the same, rather than donate? The scrambling to condemn this act of charity doesn't make any sense.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
When Roman emperors were horrible enough, their own Praetorian guard took them out. The rich and powerful get their wealth from the masses and significantly impact the lives of the masses. World leaders need the people more than the people need them. An individual with a hard scrabble subsistence existence is similarly well off whether they have a hut and must hunt for food or live in a trailer and have some shit job. But wealth at the top has increased tremendously as world population has increased. Bezos is not exempt from people getting tired of his crap and he would be wise to listen up and do something more effective.
- late2part 8y ago
  The rich are well aware of the risk of pitchforks. That’s why this is done.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doo... Articles like the above suggest the rich aren't really aware enough or trying hard enough to avoid a dystopian nightmare future. Their luxuries require a functioning world. Locking themselves away in a bunker like a self imposed prison after they make sure everything goes to hell appears to be their current idiotic plan.
    - nickpsecurity 8y ago
      The leaked Citigroup memos indicate their advisors are telling them about the voter threat if they didn't already know. The response is to pay media to brainwash them into thinking it's a good system where they can become well-off, too. https://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html https://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-pluton... Plus, they give people plenty of distractions to shout at instead of improve their situation. Human nature takes over from there.
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        If the world comes apart at the seams, it won't matter whether or not the people are sheeple who have all been bamboozled. It will still negatively impact the people at the top creating these problems. It may be "stupidity" rather than malice driving this. What I'm saying is they need to up their game out of enlightened self interest, even if they don't care one bit about the people. If the de facto pie shrinks due to global mismanagement of resources, the richest of the rich have the most to lose.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      I think the financial crisis taught us that clearly enough. Going on some of the surprised reactions from senior bankers they all appear locked away in their bubbles just as securely as any post-apocalypse bunker. Looking at politics around the world it seems like the world is slowly demonstrating that we learned nothing from the history of the 1930s.
wholinator2 8y ago
They're not condemning the act of charity, they're condemning the working conditions he subjects his employees to. Yes, the act of charity is better than nothing but it seems people think that money might be better spent on improving the quality of the jobs he offers from the dismal self-destruction they are famous for. Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display of giving and that treating your workers with human decency would be a selfless act he seems unwilling to do.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > Also pointing out that donating to charity ends up being tax deductible so it is truly the most selfish public display i mean, he still ends up with less money. he just doesn't get taxed on the money he gives away. one could argue that donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed.
  - bostik 8y ago
    > donating is more tax efficient than paying workers more, because then their income would be taxed. Eh? Taxing a corporation less is better than having its employees earn more?
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      I was talking about tax efficiency in that post, not any grand moral claim. although since we're on this topic, I would note that the US already spends as much or more money per grade school student than most of the European countries that we look to as models. this leads me to think that just shoving more tax dollars into the bureaucratic rube goldberg machine might actually be less impactful than a targeted charity effort.
- brodyprice 8y ago
  So condemn the working conditions of the company then. What does that have to do with his personal act of charity? Sure, charitable donations are tax deductible, but you say that this equates to "...truly the most selfish public display of giving..."? Why is the assumption that a wealthy person is only capable of charity for tax benefits? As if he needs the tax deductions to retain his wealth? As if he personally mistreats employees? Imperfect people are capable of honest charity.
smhost 8y ago
The lower class is angry at the billionaires because their working/living conditions are bad. The middle class is angry at the billionaires because they're the ones who end up subsidizing the poor. Bezos dumping money on poor people is not a real solution, because it doesn't address any structural problems.
ardy42 8y ago
> Would you rather he just donate nothing and keep everything else the same, rather than donate? The scrambling to condemn this act of charity doesn't make any sense. It's not really charity if you have a hand in creating the problem. A thief who pledges to contribute 10% of his loot to help his victims isn't doing good. Likewise a multi-billionaire businessman who employs people at low wages isn't deserving of kudos for setting aside a little of his wealth to help the poor, especially when he could make decisions that would help much more.
- vixen99 8y ago
  Create a fabulously successful business that puts 350,000 jobs on offer (that didn't exist before Amazon was built), and you're likened to a thief? What in this press release, https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/response-to-senator-sanders/ https://blog.aboutamazon.com/company-news/response-to-senato... - is inaccurate? It would be headline news if it was. Currently it appears that the US is enjoying extremely low unemployment so presumably there are plenty of other jobs around. People can vote with their feet.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > Create a fabulously successful business that puts 350,000 jobs on offer (that didn't exist before Amazon was built), and you're likened to a thief? No, and if you'd read more closely you'd have realized I didn't do that. I merely used a analogy involving a thief that clearly illustrates one characteristic that's relevant here. Analogies don't map one-to-one onto a topic. You really should have gotten it, too, since I didn't just stop at the analogy. I went to apply the concept it was meant to illustrate directly to the situation. Furthermore, the fact that Amazon is a "job creator" doesn't hold it, its labor practices, or the jobs it creates above criticism.
Zarath 8y ago
I mean I'm happy he's donating, but why bother with the exploit -> profit -> donate to exploited cycle when it is fully in your power to break it in the first place? I think the reason it is getting flak is that it seems disingenuous considering the massive amount of power he has to improve the lives of his workers.
- sieabahlpark 8y ago
  Probably because he's trying to improve the roots of poverty than just for his company. To do that unfortunately he needs exploit. It's not great, but if people are dumb enough to still do the jobs at those rates it's not going to change. The wages would go up if all the people actually created a need for them to go up.

Thriptic 8y ago

To play devil's advocate, if Bezos donates two billion, that's basically a one time fixed cost. He can decide not to donate any more money down the line if he chooses. If he raises wages, he will be paying at least that much in labor costs in perpetuity. He can't easily walk back his salary bumps later without enraging his workers. In addition, if he gives people raises, they will be pleased....for about a year. Then people will establish that as the new normal and demand further raises because he capitulated the first time so why not try again.

nickpsecurity 8y ago
That's not what happened at his competitors that invested in workers like Publix and Costco. They were happy enough with their wages and work environment being better than the rest that they stick with the company working hard. The industry has a tracker for customer satisfaction. They're high in it regularly. Your hypothesis didn't play out when management were committed to taking care of employees with a good baseline.

dghughes 8y ago

I'd say Amazon can start with just simply allowing employees to use the bathroom without it affecting their performance target. It seems some employees piss into a bottle while at their work station.