4 ms·
"Bezos wouldn't do this unless he saw a benefit for the business or his hand was being forced somehow." I don't like this type of knee-jerk suspicion towards p
by khawkins 8y ago
"Bezos wouldn't do this unless he saw a benefit for the business or his hand was being forced somehow."
I don't like this type of knee-jerk suspicion towards people running corporations. Don't forget that they have conscience too, and can make decisions for the better or for the worse. In fact, by not giving credit where credit is due, you disincentivize them from trying to do good things.
Yes, business people need to make hard decisions to stay competitive, and yes, they have an obligation to their investors to make a profit. But these investors are people as well and might be proud of owning the stock if the company makes positive decisions. Further, if there's a certain amount of leeway that is afforded a very successful company to do something like this, but still stay competitive, then capitalism doesn't force that person's hand.
I'm sure the full fallout of such a policy has been considered and it wasn't made impulsively. But immediately dismissing altruism as a partial motive is unfair and sets a bad precedent.
- maym86 8y agoI don't think it's a "knee-jerk" suspicion. It's from experience and knowledge that companies don't generally behave altruistically. Amazon historically has not acted altruistically. There is a considered business reason for this and I was trying to understand it. Suggesting that they likely have a strategic reason is in no way "knee-jerk".
- taysic 8y agoWe've seen that its easier to act altruistically once you're a billionaire. I think there can be an element of that - but why lobby to force other companies to do the same?
- catach 8y agoIf you think that conditions in your group would be substantially better off if everyone in the group did a certain thing, you're likely to both do that thing and advocate that others in your group do that thing.