4 ms·

What is the alternative? For people not to own the things they create?

by danhak 6y ago

brandon272 6y ago
Owning something does not mean that you have zero responsibilities associated with that ownership. I may "own my home", but I still have to pay property tax on it.
- barrenko 6y ago
  Precisely, but Bezos doesn't own something that's his, it's something that's everybody's, so definitely not the same.
  - brandon272 6y ago
    Not sure what you mean by "it's something that's everybody's".
    - yesplorer 6y ago
      I think he's implying you can also own part of Amazon by buying shares so it's not just for Bezos. Bezos owns 11% of Amazon which means over a trillion dollars in value is shared by other people who own pieces of Amazon.
mhoad 6y ago
There are a whole spectrum of options between unchecked capitalism and communism. I'm just asking what kind of guardrails if any might be appropriate moving forward now that we can see for ourselves how the current system is working for everyone.
amelius 6y ago
People create wealth all the time without (the prospect of) being paid billions Just look at some great FOSS projects: Linux, GCC, ...
- koolba 6y ago
  Just because some people are giving away free sandwiches does not mean I can't charge for the ones that I make.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    But then that swings back around to "but if you do, we're all free to judge you about it".
TremendousJudge 6y ago
You realize that Bezos didn't built Amazon on his own, right? There are many, many people who worked for that company (and many of these in this very forum), and all they got was a monthly salary. They own nothing. We are living in the alternative. Most of the people who built Amazon don't own anything of what they created.
- danhak 6y ago
  They were compensated for their labor. That’s how employment works.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    In an ideal world, it would be. He doesn’t seem to like unions, which in principle would ensure his big powerful corporation was being fair to the labour force.
  - TremendousJudge 6y ago
    You said "people not owning what they create" as though it was an unthinkable option. It's literally what most people do for a living, you said it yourself. What makes Bezos special? Why does he deserve to own ALL the creation of all of these people? I guess it can't be because he came up with the idea of Amazon, right? It is usually pointed out in SV that "ideas are worthless" after all
  - dingaling 6y ago
    So why wasn't Mr Bezos merely compensated for his labor?
- barrenko 6y ago
  What's the argument here. Salary is a salary precisely because of this reason. You get a small something, or you in a non salary scenario get either zero or something way bigger than a salary.
  - amelius 6y ago
    The deal is: you either get a salary or you carry a risk. The problem: there is no risk. Even if you go completely bankrupt, you still can get a simple job like everybody else. The only way this would be fair if the risk was losing $171.6B in case of failure.
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Well, taxation would allow continued ownership.
ben_w 6y ago
Doesn’t have to be so boolean. The alternative is taxation. He didn’t create all of that, he led and directed the efforts of others, who could’ve earned more form their blood, sweat, and tears if he had not. This is not to deny he’s a smart, highly complement business leader whose management skills acted as a force multiplier that means it was Amazon rather than, say, Walmart, who is the dominant online retailer. It’s just that saying he deserves all of that $171 billion seems as wrong to me as saying he deserves none of it.
- rukittenme 6y ago
  Many people (particularly in the lower income brackets) prefer to be paid in cash as opposed to equity[1]. Given the chance, most people prefer not to shoulder the risk of an equity stake at the expense of a reduced or non-existent salary. Is it any surprise then that a lucky few who forgo cash in favor of worthless pieces of paper become super rich after the stock rises? 1. https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-criticized-ending-warehouse-worker-bonuses-stock-awards-shift-15-hour-wage/ https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-criticized-ending-wareh...
  - TimPC 6y ago
    Many investors are also opposed to giving the poor equity in the company. Richard Garfield encountered significant opposition when he gave equity to roles like cleaning staff in Wizards of the Coast.
- tosers4 6y ago
  He is taxed, anytime he wants to move any of those stocks he pays the capital gains tax. And depending on your role at amazon, you get equity.
- malandrew 6y ago
  That wealth is not cash. It's control. It's control of something he created and would like to continue to control. He can't convert it into cash without liquidating control. Imagine is 98% of net worth was in your home. You can't mortgage that without giving up control. This is why even Bill Gates really only started being truly philanthropic at a grand scale once he had decided to relinquish control in Microsoft and pursue his philanthropic endeavors. It was only at that point was he free to do something with that wealth. We would all be better off letting Bezos build wealth and then tax it at the end. There's going to be a lot more tax money to work if you tax at the end of the prosperity.
quicklime 6y ago
One alternative is to more evenly share the ownership of things that were created by a large group of people. Jeff deserves a lot of credit for building Amazon; it is now a $1.44T company. But $171B is 12% of that, which for a single person is a lot. Maybe the other million+ people who helped Jeff build Amazon received a smaller share than they deserved?
jacknews 6y ago
Which Amazon products/services did Jeff actually create? Obviously all the past and present employees created those products, many of which are based on, or dependent on research funded by govt, and also enabled/reliant on a stable society, rule of law, an educated workforce and customer base, transport networks, electric grids, and all kinds of other infrastructure. The social bargain here is that successful companies then pay back those external govt/societal costs with taxes. Except in this case ...

What is the alternative? For people not to own the things they create?

by danhak 6y ago

What is the alternative? For people not to own the things they create?

Owning something does not mean that you have zero responsibilities associated with that ownership. I may "own my home", but I still have to pay property tax on it.

barrenko 6y ago
Precisely, but Bezos doesn't own something that's his, it's something that's everybody's, so definitely not the same.
- brandon272 6y ago
  Not sure what you mean by "it's something that's everybody's".
  - yesplorer 6y ago
    I think he's implying you can also own part of Amazon by buying shares so it's not just for Bezos. Bezos owns 11% of Amazon which means over a trillion dollars in value is shared by other people who own pieces of Amazon.

mhoad 6y ago

There are a whole spectrum of options between unchecked capitalism and communism. I'm just asking what kind of guardrails if any might be appropriate moving forward now that we can see for ourselves how the current system is working for everyone.

amelius 6y ago

People create wealth all the time without (the prospect of) being paid billions Just look at some great FOSS projects: Linux, GCC, ...

koolba 6y ago
Just because some people are giving away free sandwiches does not mean I can't charge for the ones that I make.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  But then that swings back around to "but if you do, we're all free to judge you about it".

TremendousJudge 6y ago

You realize that Bezos didn't built Amazon on his own, right? There are many, many people who worked for that company (and many of these in this very forum), and all they got was a monthly salary. They own nothing. We are living in the alternative. Most of the people who built Amazon don't own anything of what they created.

danhak 6y ago
They were compensated for their labor. That’s how employment works.
- ben_w 6y ago
  In an ideal world, it would be. He doesn’t seem to like unions, which in principle would ensure his big powerful corporation was being fair to the labour force.
- TremendousJudge 6y ago
  You said "people not owning what they create" as though it was an unthinkable option. It's literally what most people do for a living, you said it yourself. What makes Bezos special? Why does he deserve to own ALL the creation of all of these people? I guess it can't be because he came up with the idea of Amazon, right? It is usually pointed out in SV that "ideas are worthless" after all
- dingaling 6y ago
  So why wasn't Mr Bezos merely compensated for his labor?
barrenko 6y ago
What's the argument here. Salary is a salary precisely because of this reason. You get a small something, or you in a non salary scenario get either zero or something way bigger than a salary.
- amelius 6y ago
  The deal is: you either get a salary or you carry a risk. The problem: there is no risk. Even if you go completely bankrupt, you still can get a simple job like everybody else. The only way this would be fair if the risk was losing $171.6B in case of failure.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

Well, taxation would allow continued ownership.

ben_w 6y ago

Doesn’t have to be so boolean. The alternative is taxation. He didn’t create all of that, he led and directed the efforts of others, who could’ve earned more form their blood, sweat, and tears if he had not. This is not to deny he’s a smart, highly complement business leader whose management skills acted as a force multiplier that means it was Amazon rather than, say, Walmart, who is the dominant online retailer. It’s just that saying he deserves all of that $171 billion seems as wrong to me as saying he deserves none of it.

rukittenme 6y ago
Many people (particularly in the lower income brackets) prefer to be paid in cash as opposed to equity[1]. Given the chance, most people prefer not to shoulder the risk of an equity stake at the expense of a reduced or non-existent salary. Is it any surprise then that a lucky few who forgo cash in favor of worthless pieces of paper become super rich after the stock rises? 1. https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-criticized-ending-warehouse-worker-bonuses-stock-awards-shift-15-hour-wage/ https://www.geekwire.com/2018/amazon-criticized-ending-wareh...
- TimPC 6y ago
  Many investors are also opposed to giving the poor equity in the company. Richard Garfield encountered significant opposition when he gave equity to roles like cleaning staff in Wizards of the Coast.
tosers4 6y ago
He is taxed, anytime he wants to move any of those stocks he pays the capital gains tax. And depending on your role at amazon, you get equity.
malandrew 6y ago
That wealth is not cash. It's control. It's control of something he created and would like to continue to control. He can't convert it into cash without liquidating control. Imagine is 98% of net worth was in your home. You can't mortgage that without giving up control. This is why even Bill Gates really only started being truly philanthropic at a grand scale once he had decided to relinquish control in Microsoft and pursue his philanthropic endeavors. It was only at that point was he free to do something with that wealth. We would all be better off letting Bezos build wealth and then tax it at the end. There's going to be a lot more tax money to work if you tax at the end of the prosperity.

quicklime 6y ago

One alternative is to more evenly share the ownership of things that were created by a large group of people. Jeff deserves a lot of credit for building Amazon; it is now a $1.44T company. But $171B is 12% of that, which for a single person is a lot. Maybe the other million+ people who helped Jeff build Amazon received a smaller share than they deserved?

jacknews 6y ago

Which Amazon products/services did Jeff actually create? Obviously all the past and present employees created those products, many of which are based on, or dependent on research funded by govt, and also enabled/reliant on a stable society, rule of law, an educated workforce and customer base, transport networks, electric grids, and all kinds of other infrastructure. The social bargain here is that successful companies then pay back those external govt/societal costs with taxes. Except in this case ...