3 ms·

> There is no direct link between Bezos net worth and allocation of resources to laborers, and attempts to paint that picture are misguided. If they raised wag

> There is no direct link between Bezos net worth and allocation of resources to laborers, and attempts to paint that picture are misguided. If they raised wages of factory workers, profits go down, stock goes down, Bezos net worth go down. no?

nfsdjkghewyuh 6y ago
More likely if factory workers got better wages then prices of goods would go up, demand would go down, and some factory workers would no longer be needed. Amazon doesn't have the luxury of deciding it doesn't want to create value for it's shareholders, and I'm speculating widely, but I'm guessing the marketplace (B2C) aspect of the business is probably operating on much slimmer margins than the cloud aspect (B2B). If they were to subsidize the marketplace with cloud profits, it would be anti-competitive. They would be operating at a loss which would prevent competitors from being profitable and competitive.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
>If they raised wages of factory workers They then also can hire a better class of workers, leaving some working there now no longer working there. And as prices go up, everyone loses some value to buying these goods, which is then less to spend on other things. When a worker is willing to work for some wage and an employer is willing to pay it, both sides benefit, and society as a whole is not paying extra. > ... profits go down As does innovation which is paid for from those profits. And outside places, such as teacher pensions, 401ks, union pensions, state pensions, all lose money too. Taking this money from those who funded Amazon via stock purchases and secondary markets would ensure that later there is less investment available for new companies, now jobs, new industries. Stock markets lets companies get capital to grow and usually employ more people. Taking out these incentives means less companies and less jobs, which means less competition among employers to hire people, which means less wages. Doing things inefficiently, such as paying lots more than needed to clear wage floors, or paying a worker to do one task instead of two, or similar, means less value in society overall than if the things were done efficiently.

nfsdjkghewyuh 6y ago

More likely if factory workers got better wages then prices of goods would go up, demand would go down, and some factory workers would no longer be needed. Amazon doesn't have the luxury of deciding it doesn't want to create value for it's shareholders, and I'm speculating widely, but I'm guessing the marketplace (B2C) aspect of the business is probably operating on much slimmer margins than the cloud aspect (B2B). If they were to subsidize the marketplace with cloud profits, it would be anti-competitive. They would be operating at a loss which would prevent competitors from being profitable and competitive.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>If they raised wages of factory workers They then also can hire a better class of workers, leaving some working there now no longer working there. And as prices go up, everyone loses some value to buying these goods, which is then less to spend on other things. When a worker is willing to work for some wage and an employer is willing to pay it, both sides benefit, and society as a whole is not paying extra. > ... profits go down As does innovation which is paid for from those profits. And outside places, such as teacher pensions, 401ks, union pensions, state pensions, all lose money too. Taking this money from those who funded Amazon via stock purchases and secondary markets would ensure that later there is less investment available for new companies, now jobs, new industries. Stock markets lets companies get capital to grow and usually employ more people. Taking out these incentives means less companies and less jobs, which means less competition among employers to hire people, which means less wages. Doing things inefficiently, such as paying lots more than needed to clear wage floors, or paying a worker to do one task instead of two, or similar, means less value in society overall than if the things were done efficiently.