4 ms·

>when Jeff Bezos is making almost $9,000,000/hour[1] Please leave this type of intellectual dishonesty at the door. Hacker News is smarter than this. Jeff Bezo

by pb7 7y ago

>when Jeff Bezos is making almost $9,000,000/hour[1] Please leave this type of intellectual dishonesty at the door. Hacker News is smarter than this. Jeff Bezos also loses $9,000,000/hour some months. He lost billions in minutes after the earnings report a few days ago. That's what happens when you have equity in something. He bore the risk when the company made nothing and was nothing and he continues to bear that risk and reap the rewards. Amazon is attacked because it's an easy target. Warehouses have abused workers long before Amazon and continue to do so while flying under the radar despite being significantly worse than Amazon. If someone is unemployed and another person is employed but wants to get a raise with a new job, you help the unemployed person first. Your argument amounts to "well, just because this person is employed doesn't mean they don't deserve a raise". Sure, you're technically correct, but the net result of your efforts is less than if you find a job for the second person first. It's why a lot of people not in the line of fire don't take these initiatives seriously. It's also why workers from other warehouses flock to Amazon by the 100,000s despite these alleged poor conditions.

ezrast 6y ago
Bezos' current estimated net worth (143B, per Forbes) averaged over the entire 25-year history of Amazon still comes out to well over half a million an hour. Why quibble over a measly one or two orders of magnitude when the amount we're dealing with is so outsized? Also, in what sense does Bezos still bear any financial risk for anything at all? All of Amazon could crash and burn tomorrow and he'd still have enough tucked away under his mattress to last the rest of his life. A few billion at the margins either way is completely meaningless to him. Amazon is an "easy target" because it is incredibly powerful and pervasive. It's reasonable to hold powerful parties to a higher standard because they have more ability to enact both positive and negative change. And most labor activists want worker protections to be not just company policies, but laws, which would also affect all those under-the-radar companies.
- pb7 6y ago
  >Why quibble over a measly one or two orders of magnitude when the amount we're dealing with is so outsized? I am not quibbling over the exact figure. I am quibbling over the fact that he only "makes" that much by having most of his eggs in the Amazon basket, the basket that he founded and therefore owns the majority. If Amazon had failed and gone bankrupt, say, 10 years in, should all of his employees at that point have paid back their wages from over the years? It's only fair since Bezos lost everything, right? Tell me, if Bezos liquidated all but the minimum amount of equity required to remain CEO, would you still hate him just as much? Who would you hold at fault then? Or is he just your punching bag regardless? >It's reasonable to hold powerful parties to a higher standard because they have more ability to enact both positive and negative change. It's more reasonable to hold everyone to the same standard. If not, then where is the line when you go from "anything goes" to "we expect better from you"? It's only reasonable to go after the biggest one because it has the most cash to bleed. That's not noble, that's just greedy. If you actually cared about the cause of helping people that are treated the worst, you would go after much smaller and dirtier entities. And if you want them to be laws, then why the protests against Amazon specifically? Go to your congresspeople that are supposed to represent your views and make them change the laws. Amazon has zero obligation to you but your representatives do and yet Amazon is at fault here? Maybe you should start wondering why politicians you keep voting for keep getting bought out by big money. For the record, I don't even like Bezos or Amazon.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    Every hour that you work for $15/hour is a loss. It's an hour that you don't get back, in exchange for a pittance. It's only not a risk in the sense there was never any real chance of reward. Bezos did take some meaningful risks, but at some point, any sense of risk is meaningless. $10 million is enough for anyone to live out a more financially comfortable life than a $15/hour worker without ever working again. Jeff Bezos has more than 10,000 times that. What exactly has Bezos risked since he made is first $10 million? A slightly less comfortable life, with a smaller number next to his name? Maybe you think $10 million is too low a number, but whatever number you think is more money than anyone could reasonably make use of, I don't think you can honestly disagree that Bezos passed that long ago, and has not taken a meaningful risk since. For me, this isn't about hating Bezos or Amazon. It's about loving normal people who have to struggle just to get by when there is so much excess available. I don't always succeed, but I try very hard to base my ideology in love.
  - ezrast 6y ago
    There is no line, and there is no reason to choose between lobbying Amazon and lobbying politicians. People can do more than one thing! We're focusing on Amazon right now because we're in an HN thread about Amazon. I'm not going into the Intel and Uber threads and telling folks they're wasting their energy because Bezos is so much more punchable.
kerkeslager 6y ago
> Please leave this type of intellectual dishonesty at the door. Hacker News is smarter than this. Jeff Bezos also loses $9,000,000/hour some months. He lost billions in minutes after the earnings report a few days ago. That's what happens when you have equity in something. He bore the risk when the company made nothing and was nothing and he continues to bear that risk and reap the rewards. Haggling over the exact number Jeff Bezos makes hourly misses the point very intentionally, and that's certainly not honest. Can we agree that whatever Jeff Bezos' hourly income is, it's many, many orders of magnitude more than $15/hour? > Amazon is attacked because it's an easy target. Tell me another company that's mistreating their workers, in any industry, and I'll happily condemn their actions too. We need to talk about specific companies and specific abuses, because if we don't, then there's no action that can be taken which addresses the specific problem. And incidentally, it's not like people are pushing for laws that are going to be written to only apply to Amazon. Workers don't have realistic ability to use the bathroom at Amazon: so we should have a law that says workers (at any company) have a right to use the bathroom. > Warehouses have abused workers long before Amazon and continue to do so while flying under the radar despite being significantly worse than Amazon. If someone is unemployed and another person is employed but wants to get a raise with a new job, you help the unemployed person first. Your argument amounts to "well, just because this person is employed doesn't mean they don't deserve a raise". Sure, you're technically correct, but the net result of your efforts is less than if you find a job for the second person first. Ah yes, the "we're only allowed to talk about one thing so it shouldn't be this" argument. Why can't we talk about Amazon and the other companies? What's the net result of your effort? You want to talk about the entire warehouse industry? Why stop there? Aren't there even more employers in other industries? Are you just picking on the warehouse industry? Is talking about the entire warehouse industry really going to result in a larger net improvement than talking about Amazon? > It's why a lot of people not in the line of fire don't take these initiatives seriously. It's also why workers from other warehouses flock to Amazon by the 100,000s despite these alleged poor conditions. Please leave this type of intellectual dishonesty at the door. Hacker News is smarter than this. Amazon also loses some workers some months. Or that's what I would say if I were trying to sidestep your point. Instead, I'll say that there are other explanations for why people go to work at Amazon--namely, a lack of other employment options. If my options were become homeless or work at Amazon, I'd work at Amazon too. That doesn't suddenly mean Amazon gets a free pass for everything they do.

by pb7 7y ago

ezrast 6y ago

Bezos' current estimated net worth (143B, per Forbes) averaged over the entire 25-year history of Amazon still comes out to well over half a million an hour. Why quibble over a measly one or two orders of magnitude when the amount we're dealing with is so outsized? Also, in what sense does Bezos still bear any financial risk for anything at all? All of Amazon could crash and burn tomorrow and he'd still have enough tucked away under his mattress to last the rest of his life. A few billion at the margins either way is completely meaningless to him. Amazon is an "easy target" because it is incredibly powerful and pervasive. It's reasonable to hold powerful parties to a higher standard because they have more ability to enact both positive and negative change. And most labor activists want worker protections to be not just company policies, but laws, which would also affect all those under-the-radar companies.

pb7 6y ago
>Why quibble over a measly one or two orders of magnitude when the amount we're dealing with is so outsized? I am not quibbling over the exact figure. I am quibbling over the fact that he only "makes" that much by having most of his eggs in the Amazon basket, the basket that he founded and therefore owns the majority. If Amazon had failed and gone bankrupt, say, 10 years in, should all of his employees at that point have paid back their wages from over the years? It's only fair since Bezos lost everything, right? Tell me, if Bezos liquidated all but the minimum amount of equity required to remain CEO, would you still hate him just as much? Who would you hold at fault then? Or is he just your punching bag regardless? >It's reasonable to hold powerful parties to a higher standard because they have more ability to enact both positive and negative change. It's more reasonable to hold everyone to the same standard. If not, then where is the line when you go from "anything goes" to "we expect better from you"? It's only reasonable to go after the biggest one because it has the most cash to bleed. That's not noble, that's just greedy. If you actually cared about the cause of helping people that are treated the worst, you would go after much smaller and dirtier entities. And if you want them to be laws, then why the protests against Amazon specifically? Go to your congresspeople that are supposed to represent your views and make them change the laws. Amazon has zero obligation to you but your representatives do and yet Amazon is at fault here? Maybe you should start wondering why politicians you keep voting for keep getting bought out by big money. For the record, I don't even like Bezos or Amazon.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Every hour that you work for $15/hour is a loss. It's an hour that you don't get back, in exchange for a pittance. It's only not a risk in the sense there was never any real chance of reward. Bezos did take some meaningful risks, but at some point, any sense of risk is meaningless. $10 million is enough for anyone to live out a more financially comfortable life than a $15/hour worker without ever working again. Jeff Bezos has more than 10,000 times that. What exactly has Bezos risked since he made is first $10 million? A slightly less comfortable life, with a smaller number next to his name? Maybe you think $10 million is too low a number, but whatever number you think is more money than anyone could reasonably make use of, I don't think you can honestly disagree that Bezos passed that long ago, and has not taken a meaningful risk since. For me, this isn't about hating Bezos or Amazon. It's about loving normal people who have to struggle just to get by when there is so much excess available. I don't always succeed, but I try very hard to base my ideology in love.
- ezrast 6y ago
  There is no line, and there is no reason to choose between lobbying Amazon and lobbying politicians. People can do more than one thing! We're focusing on Amazon right now because we're in an HN thread about Amazon. I'm not going into the Intel and Uber threads and telling folks they're wasting their energy because Bezos is so much more punchable.

kerkeslager 6y ago

> Please leave this type of intellectual dishonesty at the door. Hacker News is smarter than this. Jeff Bezos also loses $9,000,000/hour some months. He lost billions in minutes after the earnings report a few days ago. That's what happens when you have equity in something. He bore the risk when the company made nothing and was nothing and he continues to bear that risk and reap the rewards. Haggling over the exact number Jeff Bezos makes hourly misses the point very intentionally, and that's certainly not honest. Can we agree that whatever Jeff Bezos' hourly income is, it's many, many orders of magnitude more than $15/hour? > Amazon is attacked because it's an easy target. Tell me another company that's mistreating their workers, in any industry, and I'll happily condemn their actions too. We need to talk about specific companies and specific abuses, because if we don't, then there's no action that can be taken which addresses the specific problem. And incidentally, it's not like people are pushing for laws that are going to be written to only apply to Amazon. Workers don't have realistic ability to use the bathroom at Amazon: so we should have a law that says workers (at any company) have a right to use the bathroom. > Warehouses have abused workers long before Amazon and continue to do so while flying under the radar despite being significantly worse than Amazon. If someone is unemployed and another person is employed but wants to get a raise with a new job, you help the unemployed person first. Your argument amounts to "well, just because this person is employed doesn't mean they don't deserve a raise". Sure, you're technically correct, but the net result of your efforts is less than if you find a job for the second person first. Ah yes, the "we're only allowed to talk about one thing so it shouldn't be this" argument. Why can't we talk about Amazon and the other companies? What's the net result of your effort? You want to talk about the entire warehouse industry? Why stop there? Aren't there even more employers in other industries? Are you just picking on the warehouse industry? Is talking about the entire warehouse industry really going to result in a larger net improvement than talking about Amazon? > It's why a lot of people not in the line of fire don't take these initiatives seriously. It's also why workers from other warehouses flock to Amazon by the 100,000s despite these alleged poor conditions. Please leave this type of intellectual dishonesty at the door. Hacker News is smarter than this. Amazon also loses some workers some months. Or that's what I would say if I were trying to sidestep your point. Instead, I'll say that there are other explanations for why people go to work at Amazon--namely, a lack of other employment options. If my options were become homeless or work at Amazon, I'd work at Amazon too. That doesn't suddenly mean Amazon gets a free pass for everything they do.