5 ms·
He didn't put in work worth 100b dollars.
by A12-B 6y ago
He didn't put in work worth 100b dollars.
- sgt 6y agoC'mon, he put in at least 4 dollars worth of work.
- luminaobscura 6y agoIf I make an invention that provides $1000 value to 100 million people, the work i put in is worth $100B. It doesn't matter if i did that in a day or decade.
- pii 6y agoIt would be unjust—nay, it would be abusive if we didn't let bezos make this much
- p49k 6y agoSure. The point being that Bezos didn't do that. He did provide value and should be filthy rich, but not $200 billion rich. Much of his wealth is unfairly extracted from others he exploited. If he treated every employee humanely and gave them salaries roughly corresponding to the value they provided, he might only be worth $100 million instead of $200 billion.
- seba_dos1 6y agoWhat "invention" are we talking about actually? Amazon was simply the first to grab an emerging market. If there was no Bezos, someone else would have made the same thing soon anyway. It was just a matter of being fast to act and having resources to invest, no more no less.
- gambiting 6y agoImagine you bake cakes by hand, how many can you make? Few dozen a day? Imagine that you then put together a machine that automatically makes cakes - thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of cakes a day. It was your idea, and sure, other people helped make it, but you initiated the machine building process. You now have a warehouse with million of cakes in it - would you also argue that you didn't put in the work to have them, since they weren't made by hand? Bezos built an empire. And like all empires, they are built by other people. But it's Bezos who started it.
- Talanes 6y agoEven in your customtailored analogy, the dude who is wasting cake-making supplies on an unprecedented level to just hoard them up in a warehouse is definitely in the wrong.
- A12-B 6y agoThanks for the pre-school analogy, but I still think it is wrong for one person to control 100b dollars of assets/wealth. Someone being a founder doesn't really translate to any meaningful explanation of why they should have this much power.
- edanm 6y agoNot to say I agree or disagree with you, but I believe you're talking about different things. 1. Did he do work worth 100b usd? 2. Should this mean he controls 100b dollars of assets/wealth and/or have this much power. I'd actually state 2 more specifically- should having control of 100b dollars give someone so much power (3. An alternative point that many people state: should people who have much less than the average have such poor lives in comparison to what is achievable.) I probably fall on different answers to the above questions than you, but I think it's helpful to separate out the various different statements that are being made here, at least as I see it.
- koonsolo 6y agoTrue, but he did create value worth 100b. Why does it matter how much you suffer or work or whatever? It's all about results. Is it fair? No idea, but that is how the world works. If you don't agree, you can take a look at societies that value the work inputted, such as communism. But in the end the real world cares about value, not work.
- m463 6y agoBut I can click a button and a book and a computer and a pair of scissors show up, giving me free time for things I want to do. And this happens for more people than I can even imagine. I assume since he's handing over some of the responsibility that he might do something beneficial to the human race with his money.