3 ms·
You seemed to not understand the relationship between income, spending, and wealth, so I gave a simple explanation. Of course the world is more complicated, and
by Ma8ee 6y ago
You seemed to not understand the relationship between income, spending, and wealth, so I gave a simple explanation. Of course the world is more complicated, and for example Henry Ford realised (at least according to the myth) that he had to pay his workers enough so they could buy his products, otherwise he wouldn't have enough market. But that doesn't change the fundamental relationships between income an wealth.
- missedthecue 6y agoPopular myth. Ford paid his workers that amount to outcompete competitors, not because he was in the game of charity. It's the same with Bezos, hence why Amazon lobbies for a federal $15 minimum. Many businesses will be outcompeted by Amazon with a law like that. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/the-economics-of-henry-ford-may-be-passe.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/the-economics-of...
- Ma8ee 6y agoI had a feeling that it was apocryphal. That is why I wrote “according to the myth”.
- username90 6y agoJeff Bezos wealth hasn't been realized yet though, it is a lottery ticket people would pay a lot of money for that might create that amount of wealth in the future. It is unclear how that value would change if you changed worker pay today since it isn't really related to how much profit Amazon can extract right now. If Jeff Bezos were to sell his shares of Amazon the money wouldn't come from the pockets of his workers but from the pockets of investors. Amazon hasn't generated over a trillion in profits.