> Not buying it. If it weren't Bezos, it would be someone or something else. And I don't think Bezos' effort is worth his net worth. Well, ok, but that's a val

> Not buying it. If it weren't Bezos, it would be someone or something else. And I don't think Bezos' effort is worth his net worth. Well, ok, but that's a value judgement that is frankly not backed by data. > His output would be nill without the thousands of people actually doing the stuff. If all the value is being created by the rank and file, then why has no other company with the same rank and file been able to replicate the success of Amazon? Walmart hasn't; Best Buy hasn't; Jet couldn't; no other company has been able to. Why weren't any of the big stores like Sears that existed before Amazon, and who were full of smart, high performing employees, able to create an Amazon analog before Bezos? > And "being compensated accordingly" is fine, but nothing says that has to be billions more than someone else doing basically the same amount of work. The amount of work someone does is irrelevant, it's the value the work adds that matters. I can go outside and dig holes in my backyard for 12 hours, filling them in at the end of the day, for a year straight. That is a lot of work, but it isn't creating much value which is why no one is willing to pay me to do it. Alternatively, if I wrote a program in a few days which could generate more value than 40 people's yearly work output, people would be willing to pay me very large amounts of money for those few days of work. Those few days of work would be worth much more than the entire year of digging holes despite the fact that they required far less work. The average employee isn't doing the same type of value adding work that Bezos is doing, and they couldn't if they tried. That's the point.