4 ms·
The natural counterpoint is, well, why aren't they? But that conversation is mostly opinions and hand waving on what is 'fair'. Assuming they aren't entitled t
by eximius 8y ago
The natural counterpoint is, well, why aren't they? But that conversation is mostly opinions and hand waving on what is 'fair'.
Assuming they aren't entitled to equal or near equal shares though, we can certainly ask how much is too unequal? A single man having more wealth than 300k people earning in nearly a lifetime seems like it is probably too much.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y agoI think that conversation is actually rather straight forward. You can replace warehouse workers with pretty much any able bodied person in America, and Amazon would operate exactly the same, with no loss in revenue. Who could you replace Jeff Bezos with? Do you think Amazon could just survive indefinitely without making any major changes and continue to be worth what they are? AWS alone proves to me he deserves as much as he gets. An eretailer also runs the largest (and pretty much first) cloud computing company in the world. I don't there's a lot of CEOs who would have chosen to branch out in that way, but it's extremely likely that AWS will end up surpassing Amazon itself. The warehouse workers had no impact on that decision, and that decision is a very, very large reason why they're worth as much as they are today.