5 ms·

I always believe in 50/50 but i think she did the right things here because Jeff Bezos = Amazon. There comes a point in which having more money just does not ma

I always believe in 50/50 but i think she did the right things here because Jeff Bezos = Amazon. There comes a point in which having more money just does not make any slightest difference.

dpark 8y ago
You “always believe in 50/50” but “she did the right things here”? This are fundamentally inconsistent viewpoints.
- oaiey 8y ago
  I do not think so. It is "super rich" and "super rich". Sounds like everyone got the same. When you are in their position, it is more important to be fair to each other, which is then the 50:50.
  - dpark 8y ago
    So not “50/50”....
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  Not necessarily. I think this poster is saying she's entitled to 50%, but it's a wise move on her part to accept 25% instead. If that's what they meant, those are not inconsistent viewpoints.
  - dpark 8y ago
    The comment was that she did the “right” thing, not the “smart” thing. If 50/50 is the “right thing” then 75/25 is by definition not the “right thing”.
- netwanderer3 8y ago
  In normal circumstances which applied to most public population, a 50/50 split of shares is fair. But Jeff Bezos doesn't belong to a normally distributed population, his is an outlier case statistically, with Amazon being an extremely important asset that not only affects their personal lives, but also has enormous impacts and responsibility to the public. Jeff Bezo's personality and leadership are crucial for the organization. You can't apply the same principles to his case vs. the majority of public. The key to being effective is the ability to recognize the differences in special circumstances, and knowing how to be flexible so you can adapt to those situations. I can tell it's not easy for most people. One of the biggest problems today is most people only perceive the world as either black or white, and there are no "in-between", or "grey-zones", or "outliers". But the real world in our lives has never worked like that. This viewpoint is producing a lot of narcissists and their "you are either with me or against me" attitude, which subsequently contributing to a lot of hatreds around us. Emotionally intelligent people are the ones who truly understand the meaning of the word "compromise", in order to produce a win-win result. That's what separates them from the rest.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I don’t understand why you’re headed down tangents about narcissism and emotional intelligence, and I’m not going to bother engaging on all of that because it’s irrelevant and seems mostly about you asserting not-so-subtly that you’re smarter than everyone else. What I will say is that you shouldn’t speak in absolutes if that’s not a position you actually hold. You rambled about black and white while you ignored that you made a black and white statement initially, which is why I replied at all: ”I always believe in 50/50”. Replace “always” with “generally” and there wouldn’t be a conflict in what you wrote, and I wouldn’t have replied, and you likely wouldn’t have gotten downvotes (which I presume were for the inconsistency in your comment).
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - netwanderer3 8y ago
      When I mentioned of "emotional intelligence", I was referring to Mackenzie Bezos, for her willingness to compromise because she clearly understood how important Jeff's shares and voting rights were to Amazon. Not everyone could have seen or acted in such manner. This was why I said she did the right things. Your multiple attempts in replying, not only to my personal comment but also to others', indicated you were seeking a proper explanation for my "inconsistent viewpoints". That was what prompted me to address the issue of many people in today world who don't seem to possess the ability to pivot under special circumstances, only because they are just so rigid in holding to their previous beliefs, no matter it was right or wrong. The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. Based on your last comment, I am not sure if you truly understood the benefits of such "inconsistent viewpoints", so I will leave you with a short link below. It also happens to be about Jeff Bezos the man himself: https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mind-a-lot-jeff-bezos-smart-people-always-change-their-minds.html https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mi...
xutopia 8y ago
I think a rigid 50/50 is the wrong way to go about it. Just because you are in love with someone does not mean they provided half the value you both accrued while together. Taking half of what someone else accomplished just because the laws force you to do it doesn't mean that it is legitimately theirs. It just means the laws are in place to allow such an injustice.
- netwanderer3 8y ago
  This depends on each person's viewpoint and their perspective in life. A family with children may have a husband being the main source of income while his housewife stays at home to look after their children and property. Just because the husband is the only one working does not mean his wife is not contributing equally in raising their kids and maintaining their family. The husband himself is personally responsible for those same tasks his wife is doing at home, and should have been doing them himself too. We can't single out the money source as the only element in a relationship, while completely ignoring other efforts that might have provided even higher values than just monetary wealth. This again traces back to each individual's value and belief system. The purpose of the law is to uphold justice. You really think they didn't consider it before drafting and implementing such laws? People keep fighting for equal rights at work places or in society, but then conveniently turn around and say 50/50 is not fair when the moment comes to decide on their own portion of shares. That's why the laws are flexible enough to allow people the ability to sign pre-marriage contracts for those who are too concerned with that. They can't bend the laws for their own mistake after failing to be responsible for themselves. Though I do agree that a rigid 50/50 should not be applied to every situation as there will always be special cases that are outliers.

I always believe in 50/50 but i think she did the right things here because Jeff Bezos = Amazon. There comes a point in which having more money just does not make any slightest difference.

dpark 8y ago

You “always believe in 50/50” but “she did the right things here”? This are fundamentally inconsistent viewpoints.

oaiey 8y ago
I do not think so. It is "super rich" and "super rich". Sounds like everyone got the same. When you are in their position, it is more important to be fair to each other, which is then the 50:50.
- dpark 8y ago
  So not “50/50”....
nickelcitymario 8y ago
Not necessarily. I think this poster is saying she's entitled to 50%, but it's a wise move on her part to accept 25% instead. If that's what they meant, those are not inconsistent viewpoints.
- dpark 8y ago
  The comment was that she did the “right” thing, not the “smart” thing. If 50/50 is the “right thing” then 75/25 is by definition not the “right thing”.
netwanderer3 8y ago
In normal circumstances which applied to most public population, a 50/50 split of shares is fair. But Jeff Bezos doesn't belong to a normally distributed population, his is an outlier case statistically, with Amazon being an extremely important asset that not only affects their personal lives, but also has enormous impacts and responsibility to the public. Jeff Bezo's personality and leadership are crucial for the organization. You can't apply the same principles to his case vs. the majority of public. The key to being effective is the ability to recognize the differences in special circumstances, and knowing how to be flexible so you can adapt to those situations. I can tell it's not easy for most people. One of the biggest problems today is most people only perceive the world as either black or white, and there are no "in-between", or "grey-zones", or "outliers". But the real world in our lives has never worked like that. This viewpoint is producing a lot of narcissists and their "you are either with me or against me" attitude, which subsequently contributing to a lot of hatreds around us. Emotionally intelligent people are the ones who truly understand the meaning of the word "compromise", in order to produce a win-win result. That's what separates them from the rest.
- dpark 8y ago
  I don’t understand why you’re headed down tangents about narcissism and emotional intelligence, and I’m not going to bother engaging on all of that because it’s irrelevant and seems mostly about you asserting not-so-subtly that you’re smarter than everyone else. What I will say is that you shouldn’t speak in absolutes if that’s not a position you actually hold. You rambled about black and white while you ignored that you made a black and white statement initially, which is why I replied at all: ”I always believe in 50/50”. Replace “always” with “generally” and there wouldn’t be a conflict in what you wrote, and I wouldn’t have replied, and you likely wouldn’t have gotten downvotes (which I presume were for the inconsistency in your comment).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - netwanderer3 8y ago
    When I mentioned of "emotional intelligence", I was referring to Mackenzie Bezos, for her willingness to compromise because she clearly understood how important Jeff's shares and voting rights were to Amazon. Not everyone could have seen or acted in such manner. This was why I said she did the right things. Your multiple attempts in replying, not only to my personal comment but also to others', indicated you were seeking a proper explanation for my "inconsistent viewpoints". That was what prompted me to address the issue of many people in today world who don't seem to possess the ability to pivot under special circumstances, only because they are just so rigid in holding to their previous beliefs, no matter it was right or wrong. The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. Based on your last comment, I am not sure if you truly understood the benefits of such "inconsistent viewpoints", so I will leave you with a short link below. It also happens to be about Jeff Bezos the man himself: https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mind-a-lot-jeff-bezos-smart-people-always-change-their-minds.html https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mi...

xutopia 8y ago

I think a rigid 50/50 is the wrong way to go about it. Just because you are in love with someone does not mean they provided half the value you both accrued while together. Taking half of what someone else accomplished just because the laws force you to do it doesn't mean that it is legitimately theirs. It just means the laws are in place to allow such an injustice.

netwanderer3 8y ago
This depends on each person's viewpoint and their perspective in life. A family with children may have a husband being the main source of income while his housewife stays at home to look after their children and property. Just because the husband is the only one working does not mean his wife is not contributing equally in raising their kids and maintaining their family. The husband himself is personally responsible for those same tasks his wife is doing at home, and should have been doing them himself too. We can't single out the money source as the only element in a relationship, while completely ignoring other efforts that might have provided even higher values than just monetary wealth. This again traces back to each individual's value and belief system. The purpose of the law is to uphold justice. You really think they didn't consider it before drafting and implementing such laws? People keep fighting for equal rights at work places or in society, but then conveniently turn around and say 50/50 is not fair when the moment comes to decide on their own portion of shares. That's why the laws are flexible enough to allow people the ability to sign pre-marriage contracts for those who are too concerned with that. They can't bend the laws for their own mistake after failing to be responsible for themselves. Though I do agree that a rigid 50/50 should not be applied to every situation as there will always be special cases that are outliers.