5 ms·

> Did he not divorce his wife by parting with half his fortune? Half of their fortune. It was communal property.

by rodgerd 8y ago

dahfizz 8y ago
Let's be real. He earned much more than half.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  His wife supported him after he left his IB job to start Amazon. Amazon would not be without her in all probability. I argue Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support. https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-genius-myth/ https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-geni...
  - busterarm 8y ago
    Jeff's parents supported him when he left his hedge fund job at D.E. Shaw. He was a quant and he had been there 4 years. He left his bonus on the table when he left but he was extremely well paid. He wasn't exactly hurting for cash. It's already well established fact that Jeff's/Amazon's costs in the early days were paid for with his parents' life savings.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      You interpreted "support" differently than I: "The couple was leaving behind a wealthy existence on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, according to Brad Stone, the author of the 2013 book The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon. “They gave up a really comfortable lifestyle and successful careers to move across the country and start something on the internet,” says Stone. “The only reason [Jeff] was able to do that is because he had an extremely supportive spouse. It was an incredible risk and one that they both took on jointly.” "In a 2010 commencement speech he gave at Princeton, Jeff himself acknowledged the gamble his wife had taken. “I told my wife MacKenzie that I wanted to quit my job and go do this crazy thing that probably wouldn’t work since most startups don’t, and I wasn’t sure what would happen after that,” he said. “MacKenzie … told me I should go for it.” (Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)"
      - busterarm 8y ago
        And yet spousal support after a divorce isn't in the form of "yes, you should take the extremely risky move of living without my billions of dollars. I support your doing this."
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Such are the perils of a billionaire's marriage dissolving in a community property state. Marriage and living in Washington state are voluntary actions. My argument was for more value of a partner's contributions to business success, regardless of statute. EDIT: @busterarm: We're not going to agree on what defines "earned", good chat.
        busterarm 8y ago
        Yes, but then regulatory hazard isn't the same thing as earning the money. It's just being entitled to it. Edit: I'm pretty sure Amazon shareholders won't agree with you about the definition of "earned" either. It's not just cash at stake here, it's voting power. Is that spousal support worth 8.5% control of the company? Up from 0%. I'm not saying she isn't entitled to it, just that there's a difference between value through entitlement and value through work.
        rtx 8y ago
        It's not 8.5% from 0%. Its 8.5% from 16%.
      - Rapzid 8y ago
        Says Stone. Honestly, I find that this stuff is as romanticized as the Old South.
  - kumarvvr 8y ago
    Not being sarcastic, but support for 20 years, is a bit far fetched. At some point after inception, Amazon was successful, even before it went public. So are you saying Amazon rose in value because Jeff had the undying support of his wife? I would say the support helped Jeff until the company was self-sustaining and successful. Of course, without the initial support of his wife, Amazon would not have started in the first place, or perhaps, started a bit late or grow a bit slowly. Think of the counter argument. If Jeff's wife was vehemently against it, Jeff did not start any company, and then after 20 years she divorced him, she would still get a share of his money. Do lawyers then argue that since she did not support him in his endeavors, she ought to bear some of his opportunity cost? Day to day operations were taken care of by Jeff. Extremely difficult decisions, ones that make or break a company were taken by Jeff. Hiring and firing decisions were taken by Jeff. Vision for the company originated with and sustained by Jeff. I would not credit the wife with half of everything. Difficult to put a number to the situation. It's just sad.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      I don't want this thread to devolve needlessly; in summary: I treat my wife like my cofounder with an equal share of equity. I wouldn't let my cofounder take anything less than half of the total value of the business if a liquidation/separation/liquidity event occurred, so why would I treat my spousal relationship differently considering the work a relationship requires? If you're concerned about your partner entitled to half as not being equitable, you might consider your partner selection before the division of equity. This applies whether I'm worth a thousand dollars, or a billion dollars. EDIT: Was I being judgemental? It was intended more as "Choose Wisely" from Indiana Jones. As you mention sytelus, most of success is luck, but you can make every effort to pick the right partner.
      - kumarvvr 8y ago
        I am not commenting on the law. The law says a divorced wife gets half of whatever. I don't care. What I do care is the notion that the growth and success of Amazon is 50% due to the wife. That I disagree with.
  - everdev 8y ago
    > Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support. No, Jeff's wife was not in the room making the business decisions that were needed to be made to amass their fortune. Let's say she watched the kids and maintained the house with no help. That's a mighty contribution, but there are other stay at home spouses that do that too who would be entitled to far less in a separation solely because of the money their partner has made. So why does she get billions and the average stay at home divorcee gets thousands? Was her contribution to the family a million times more valuable than the average stay at home spouse? No, Jeff made the money and she's entitled to half. They both knew that going in and know that now. She didn't earn billions through parenting that was so much better than anyone else or create that much more value than the average spouse, but she is entitled to half by law. To put it another way, if they had signed a prenup and he had paid her $1000/hr 24/7 for 30 years, she would have earned $262 million. Or about 250 times less than the ~$65 billion she could get. Instead, she walks away with having made about $290k per hour every hour every day for the 25 years they were married. That's a lot of support.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Let’s go ahead and not debate this. You won’t come to a satisfactorily equitable answer, no one will change their minds and we’ll just have a thread of gray comments where nothing of value was gained.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

> Did he not divorce his wife by parting with half his fortune? Half of their fortune. It was communal property.

dahfizz 8y ago

Let's be real. He earned much more than half.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
His wife supported him after he left his IB job to start Amazon. Amazon would not be without her in all probability. I argue Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support. https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-genius-myth/ https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-geni...
- busterarm 8y ago
  Jeff's parents supported him when he left his hedge fund job at D.E. Shaw. He was a quant and he had been there 4 years. He left his bonus on the table when he left but he was extremely well paid. He wasn't exactly hurting for cash. It's already well established fact that Jeff's/Amazon's costs in the early days were paid for with his parents' life savings.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    You interpreted "support" differently than I: "The couple was leaving behind a wealthy existence on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, according to Brad Stone, the author of the 2013 book The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon. “They gave up a really comfortable lifestyle and successful careers to move across the country and start something on the internet,” says Stone. “The only reason [Jeff] was able to do that is because he had an extremely supportive spouse. It was an incredible risk and one that they both took on jointly.” "In a 2010 commencement speech he gave at Princeton, Jeff himself acknowledged the gamble his wife had taken. “I told my wife MacKenzie that I wanted to quit my job and go do this crazy thing that probably wouldn’t work since most startups don’t, and I wasn’t sure what would happen after that,” he said. “MacKenzie … told me I should go for it.” (Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)"
    - busterarm 8y ago
      And yet spousal support after a divorce isn't in the form of "yes, you should take the extremely risky move of living without my billions of dollars. I support your doing this."
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        Such are the perils of a billionaire's marriage dissolving in a community property state. Marriage and living in Washington state are voluntary actions. My argument was for more value of a partner's contributions to business success, regardless of statute. EDIT: @busterarm: We're not going to agree on what defines "earned", good chat.
        busterarm 8y ago
        Yes, but then regulatory hazard isn't the same thing as earning the money. It's just being entitled to it. Edit: I'm pretty sure Amazon shareholders won't agree with you about the definition of "earned" either. It's not just cash at stake here, it's voting power. Is that spousal support worth 8.5% control of the company? Up from 0%. I'm not saying she isn't entitled to it, just that there's a difference between value through entitlement and value through work.
        rtx 8y ago
        It's not 8.5% from 0%. Its 8.5% from 16%.
    - Rapzid 8y ago
      Says Stone. Honestly, I find that this stuff is as romanticized as the Old South.
- kumarvvr 8y ago
  Not being sarcastic, but support for 20 years, is a bit far fetched. At some point after inception, Amazon was successful, even before it went public. So are you saying Amazon rose in value because Jeff had the undying support of his wife? I would say the support helped Jeff until the company was self-sustaining and successful. Of course, without the initial support of his wife, Amazon would not have started in the first place, or perhaps, started a bit late or grow a bit slowly. Think of the counter argument. If Jeff's wife was vehemently against it, Jeff did not start any company, and then after 20 years she divorced him, she would still get a share of his money. Do lawyers then argue that since she did not support him in his endeavors, she ought to bear some of his opportunity cost? Day to day operations were taken care of by Jeff. Extremely difficult decisions, ones that make or break a company were taken by Jeff. Hiring and firing decisions were taken by Jeff. Vision for the company originated with and sustained by Jeff. I would not credit the wife with half of everything. Difficult to put a number to the situation. It's just sad.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I don't want this thread to devolve needlessly; in summary: I treat my wife like my cofounder with an equal share of equity. I wouldn't let my cofounder take anything less than half of the total value of the business if a liquidation/separation/liquidity event occurred, so why would I treat my spousal relationship differently considering the work a relationship requires? If you're concerned about your partner entitled to half as not being equitable, you might consider your partner selection before the division of equity. This applies whether I'm worth a thousand dollars, or a billion dollars. EDIT: Was I being judgemental? It was intended more as "Choose Wisely" from Indiana Jones. As you mention sytelus, most of success is luck, but you can make every effort to pick the right partner.
    - kumarvvr 8y ago
      I am not commenting on the law. The law says a divorced wife gets half of whatever. I don't care. What I do care is the notion that the growth and success of Amazon is 50% due to the wife. That I disagree with.
- everdev 8y ago
  > Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support. No, Jeff's wife was not in the room making the business decisions that were needed to be made to amass their fortune. Let's say she watched the kids and maintained the house with no help. That's a mighty contribution, but there are other stay at home spouses that do that too who would be entitled to far less in a separation solely because of the money their partner has made. So why does she get billions and the average stay at home divorcee gets thousands? Was her contribution to the family a million times more valuable than the average stay at home spouse? No, Jeff made the money and she's entitled to half. They both knew that going in and know that now. She didn't earn billions through parenting that was so much better than anyone else or create that much more value than the average spouse, but she is entitled to half by law. To put it another way, if they had signed a prenup and he had paid her $1000/hr 24/7 for 30 years, she would have earned $262 million. Or about 250 times less than the ~$65 billion she could get. Instead, she walks away with having made about $290k per hour every hour every day for the 25 years they were married. That's a lot of support.
throwawaymath 8y ago
Let’s go ahead and not debate this. You won’t come to a satisfactorily equitable answer, no one will change their minds and we’ll just have a thread of gray comments where nothing of value was gained.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]