9 ms·

Jeff Bezos' Day One fund gives $97.5M to first 24 recipients

41 points by CitizenTekk 8y ago

nsx147 8y ago
That was fast.
option_greek 8y ago
Does it hurt to put 24 organizations instead of 24 recipients. As clickbaity as it can get.
- brink 8y ago
  It sounds like a lotto
kennyadam 8y ago
It's nice that rather than paying people sensible wages, we make people mega-billionaires and then they hand back a fraction of it.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I have been thinking about this. If a business pays their employees well they don't look good on the stock market and they don't get PR points for philanthropy. On the other hand if you squeeze out every bit of profit, you look good in the stock market and you get big PR points if you do a little philanthropy. The decision seems pretty clear.
  - johneth 8y ago
    Maybe. I would argue that long term it isn't. Businesses and the people who control them are only that wealthy because society lets them be that wealthy. Damaging society (e.g. via increasingly obscene wealth inequality making people more unhappy) means, long-term, risking massive societal upheaval, and thus your position.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      "Damaging society (e.g. via increasingly obscene wealth inequality making people more unhappy) means, long-term, risking massive societal upheaval, and thus your position." Do you think that current businesses think about this a lot?
cazum 8y ago
Reminder that the reason he is doing this is to trick you into thinking massive top-heavy wealth accumulation can be sustainable or in any way "good". If you need any evidence that this is anything but a PR sham, read this: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/amazon-seattle-repeal-head-tax-homelessness https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/amazon-seattle-repea...
- refurb 8y ago
  Your article doesn't really convince me. You can be for helping the homeless, but be opposed to a head tax.
- notyourwork 8y ago
  Perhaps you could describe your interpretation of the article referenced and why you feel he is trying to trick people by giving away ~$100M.
  - aylmao 8y ago
    My interpretation: - Paying this small tax would help the homeless, but Jeff/Amazon would see no direct benefit from this. - Donating money has the direct benefit of positive PR. The last wealthiest guy in the world did it too-- so arguably not doing it is in fact not a neutral stance but negative PR. Hence it's in Jeff Bezos' interest to pay less taxes and donate the money it takes to make the headlines.
    - lisper 8y ago
      It's also important to remember that while $100M sounds like a lot of money (and it is) it is only 0.1% of Bezos's net worth. It's the equivalent of someone whose net worth is $1M giving away $1000.00. And actually, it's not even equivalent to that because if you have $1M and you give away $1000 you can no longer afford to buy something that costs $1M. But when your net worth is $100B and you give away $100M your net worth is still $99.9B. You are still the richest man in the world by a wide margin, and there is essentially nothing you can't buy.
techterrier 8y ago
Or he could try paying his taxes.
a-dub 8y ago
I dunno. I think a $2bn endowment that hands out $200mm/yr to those who are most in need is pretty damned cool. Hopefully it's the beginning of what's to come. The thing to keep in mind is that the guy has $infinity and his company has infinity success. Neither have to continue as they have already won. What will define the legacy is what is done with the accumulated wealth, this seems to be a good first step. ... and yes, the PR is important. Maybe it will encourage more wealthy people to give back, in substantial ways even. I don't see the value in sneering at philanthropy... ever.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  I think the "robber barons" of our generation are more ambitious than the previously known. Amazon could keep increasing its size for decades attacking the global market.
- johneth 8y ago
  > I think a $2bn endowment that hands out $200mm/yr to those who are most in need is pretty damned cool. Tax is a superior way of doing this. Tax and where to spend it is in principle decided by all the people, democratically, whereas this method is decided at the whims of one man who got lucky.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    Maybe? I’d rather Elon Musk have his money, the same might be true for Bezos.
  - quest88 8y ago
    Where do you live? In the US this isn't true. In the US we've decided to democratically spend it on the military.
    - johneth 8y ago
      > In the US this isn't true. In the US we've decided to democratically spend it on the military. So it is true. The People (collectively) have decided to elect those whose policies are to spend money on the military rather than other things. If you want to change this policy, you need to find likeminded people and together convince enough other people change their minds.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
Amazon was given $2B in tax subsidies for HQ2 by New York and Virginia. We may as well be paying for this with our tax dollars.
- misiti3780 8y ago
  read: https://avc.com/2018/11/the-overpay-critique/ https://avc.com/2018/11/the-overpay-critique/
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    That's a non sequitur; Amazon would still have built its HQ2s somewhere if not NY and VA. My point is the tax subsidies are roughly equal to $2B, so they effectively cancel out the fund.
    - jjeaff 8y ago
      They could have built it in a state with little or no corporate tax.
  - ar0b 8y ago
    That isn't a very in depth analysis of the situation. Those tax dollars pay for things like infrastructure and services, that all those new employees will be consuming. I would be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis than what's provided in that post.
  - pmart123 8y ago
    What's the problem with most projections though? How do they arrive at this number? It seems to me that this is similar to a startup offering 5 year growth projections. I mean, one problem in this whole assumption to me seems whether Amazon even can more than double in size. If Amazon plans on growing its white collar workforce from 40k to 100k, presumably it needs to double its revenue. We are also assuming that they double revenue/headcount without increasing Seattle headcount, wage growth, or that automation reduces the need to increase headcount. All of this is possible, but it isn't necessarily a shoe in that Amazon even pulls this off. Another thing that seems to be overlooked is at what price would have Amazon still made the same decision? Could NYC offer $1B in incentives, and Amazon makes the same choice? By helping Amazon artificially lower costs, how does this impact New York businesses like IBM and the many fashion retail brands?
irq-1 8y ago
As a historical note: George Peabody was famous for helping the homeless in London and there is still a statue of him outside the Royal Exchange. > George Peabody, an American financier and philanthropist, is widely regarded as the father of modern philanthropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody He also donated the money he had promised to his partner Junius Morgan.
darkstar999 8y ago
It's like a normal person giving $100 to charity. Wouldn't it be cool if you could move the needle on vulnerable children with pocket change? (I'm not downplaying his charity, just putting it in perspective)
- jopsen 8y ago
  And if everybody donated 100 USD to charity that it would have huge impact :) In related news: extreme poverty is likely disappearing over the next 10 years, if you want earn some karma points by saving people in need, now is the time to act.
zimablue 8y ago
Charity exists on a scale from very considered to not at all considered, same scale with not very effective/$ to very effective/$. There are meta-charities that try to evaluate the effectiveness of other charities. The point is that this is at the "not considered/effective" end of the scale. The really pressing problems of the world aren't American homelessness, and homelessness is not a cost effective problem to try and solve (compared to eg. people dying of water-borne diseases in the third world). So he either hasn't thought about it, or doesn't really care (and the two are connected one implies the other).
- 13415 8y ago
  Or maybe he just personally cares more about American homeless people than about aiding in the most effective way possible.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So he either hasn't thought about it, or doesn't really care Or he just has different subjective values than you do, since effectiveness is always (subjectively chosen value function)/$

41 points by CitizenTekk 8y ago

nsx147 8y ago

That was fast.

option_greek 8y ago

Does it hurt to put 24 organizations instead of 24 recipients. As clickbaity as it can get.

brink 8y ago
It sounds like a lotto

kennyadam 8y ago

It's nice that rather than paying people sensible wages, we make people mega-billionaires and then they hand back a fraction of it.

maxxxxx 8y ago
I have been thinking about this. If a business pays their employees well they don't look good on the stock market and they don't get PR points for philanthropy. On the other hand if you squeeze out every bit of profit, you look good in the stock market and you get big PR points if you do a little philanthropy. The decision seems pretty clear.
- johneth 8y ago
  Maybe. I would argue that long term it isn't. Businesses and the people who control them are only that wealthy because society lets them be that wealthy. Damaging society (e.g. via increasingly obscene wealth inequality making people more unhappy) means, long-term, risking massive societal upheaval, and thus your position.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "Damaging society (e.g. via increasingly obscene wealth inequality making people more unhappy) means, long-term, risking massive societal upheaval, and thus your position." Do you think that current businesses think about this a lot?

cazum 8y ago

Reminder that the reason he is doing this is to trick you into thinking massive top-heavy wealth accumulation can be sustainable or in any way "good". If you need any evidence that this is anything but a PR sham, read this: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/amazon-seattle-repeal-head-tax-homelessness https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/amazon-seattle-repea...

refurb 8y ago
Your article doesn't really convince me. You can be for helping the homeless, but be opposed to a head tax.
notyourwork 8y ago
Perhaps you could describe your interpretation of the article referenced and why you feel he is trying to trick people by giving away ~$100M.
- aylmao 8y ago
  My interpretation: - Paying this small tax would help the homeless, but Jeff/Amazon would see no direct benefit from this. - Donating money has the direct benefit of positive PR. The last wealthiest guy in the world did it too-- so arguably not doing it is in fact not a neutral stance but negative PR. Hence it's in Jeff Bezos' interest to pay less taxes and donate the money it takes to make the headlines.
  - lisper 8y ago
    It's also important to remember that while $100M sounds like a lot of money (and it is) it is only 0.1% of Bezos's net worth. It's the equivalent of someone whose net worth is $1M giving away $1000.00. And actually, it's not even equivalent to that because if you have $1M and you give away $1000 you can no longer afford to buy something that costs $1M. But when your net worth is $100B and you give away $100M your net worth is still $99.9B. You are still the richest man in the world by a wide margin, and there is essentially nothing you can't buy.

techterrier 8y ago

Or he could try paying his taxes.

a-dub 8y ago

I dunno. I think a $2bn endowment that hands out $200mm/yr to those who are most in need is pretty damned cool. Hopefully it's the beginning of what's to come. The thing to keep in mind is that the guy has $infinity and his company has infinity success. Neither have to continue as they have already won. What will define the legacy is what is done with the accumulated wealth, this seems to be a good first step. ... and yes, the PR is important. Maybe it will encourage more wealthy people to give back, in substantial ways even. I don't see the value in sneering at philanthropy... ever.

conanbatt 8y ago
I think the "robber barons" of our generation are more ambitious than the previously known. Amazon could keep increasing its size for decades attacking the global market.
johneth 8y ago
> I think a $2bn endowment that hands out $200mm/yr to those who are most in need is pretty damned cool. Tax is a superior way of doing this. Tax and where to spend it is in principle decided by all the people, democratically, whereas this method is decided at the whims of one man who got lucky.
- fossuser 8y ago
  Maybe? I’d rather Elon Musk have his money, the same might be true for Bezos.
- quest88 8y ago
  Where do you live? In the US this isn't true. In the US we've decided to democratically spend it on the military.
  - johneth 8y ago
    > In the US this isn't true. In the US we've decided to democratically spend it on the military. So it is true. The People (collectively) have decided to elect those whose policies are to spend money on the military rather than other things. If you want to change this policy, you need to find likeminded people and together convince enough other people change their minds.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Amazon was given $2B in tax subsidies for HQ2 by New York and Virginia. We may as well be paying for this with our tax dollars.

misiti3780 8y ago
read: https://avc.com/2018/11/the-overpay-critique/ https://avc.com/2018/11/the-overpay-critique/
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  That's a non sequitur; Amazon would still have built its HQ2s somewhere if not NY and VA. My point is the tax subsidies are roughly equal to $2B, so they effectively cancel out the fund.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    They could have built it in a state with little or no corporate tax.
- ar0b 8y ago
  That isn't a very in depth analysis of the situation. Those tax dollars pay for things like infrastructure and services, that all those new employees will be consuming. I would be interested in seeing a more detailed analysis than what's provided in that post.
- pmart123 8y ago
  What's the problem with most projections though? How do they arrive at this number? It seems to me that this is similar to a startup offering 5 year growth projections. I mean, one problem in this whole assumption to me seems whether Amazon even can more than double in size. If Amazon plans on growing its white collar workforce from 40k to 100k, presumably it needs to double its revenue. We are also assuming that they double revenue/headcount without increasing Seattle headcount, wage growth, or that automation reduces the need to increase headcount. All of this is possible, but it isn't necessarily a shoe in that Amazon even pulls this off. Another thing that seems to be overlooked is at what price would have Amazon still made the same decision? Could NYC offer $1B in incentives, and Amazon makes the same choice? By helping Amazon artificially lower costs, how does this impact New York businesses like IBM and the many fashion retail brands?

irq-1 8y ago

As a historical note: George Peabody was famous for helping the homeless in London and there is still a statue of him outside the Royal Exchange. > George Peabody, an American financier and philanthropist, is widely regarded as the father of modern philanthropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody He also donated the money he had promised to his partner Junius Morgan.

darkstar999 8y ago

It's like a normal person giving $100 to charity. Wouldn't it be cool if you could move the needle on vulnerable children with pocket change? (I'm not downplaying his charity, just putting it in perspective)

jopsen 8y ago
And if everybody donated 100 USD to charity that it would have huge impact :) In related news: extreme poverty is likely disappearing over the next 10 years, if you want earn some karma points by saving people in need, now is the time to act.

zimablue 8y ago

Charity exists on a scale from very considered to not at all considered, same scale with not very effective/$ to very effective/$. There are meta-charities that try to evaluate the effectiveness of other charities. The point is that this is at the "not considered/effective" end of the scale. The really pressing problems of the world aren't American homelessness, and homelessness is not a cost effective problem to try and solve (compared to eg. people dying of water-borne diseases in the third world). So he either hasn't thought about it, or doesn't really care (and the two are connected one implies the other).

13415 8y ago
Or maybe he just personally cares more about American homeless people than about aiding in the most effective way possible.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> So he either hasn't thought about it, or doesn't really care Or he just has different subjective values than you do, since effectiveness is always (subjectively chosen value function)/$