5 ms·

I find this logic quite interesting. Amazon is often the best employer many individuals have ever had in their areas.

by nojito 5y ago

cassianoleal 5y ago
> many individuals What's the proportion of those to the total number of individuals employed, directly or indirectly by them?
WJW 5y ago
Yes, most of the world being so shitty that even Amazon is one of the better employers is one of the problems back on earth that needs to be fixed. It's always a little sad to see some researcher work out a ballpark estimate for (say) giving every child on earth proper healthcare and even the pessimistic estimates are no more than 10% of what the western world spends on cosmetics alone. That said, I don't begrudge Bezos&Branson their space race hobby. Certainly better than the "who has the biggest yacht" type of shenanigans most rich people get up to.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  Apperantly Jeff Bezos has a yacht that is so big that it comes with a smaller support yacht. The small one has a helipad.
  - madengr 5y ago
    That keeps the people who build yachts employed. Which distributes more wealth, buying yachts or stocks?
  - SwiftyBug 5y ago
    Rumor has it that the Evergiven was a trial to see if Bezos could cross the Suez canal on his smaller yacht.
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      Some say that he could see his yacht from space on his flight. Some even claim that is the only way to see it in full size all at once.
- throwawaycuriou 5y ago
  Unsure if you intended with that example, but Bezos is among other things building a half billion USD yacht.
- leereeves 5y ago
  Bezos and Amazon aren't the reason children lack access to proper healthcare and taxing them won't fix that problem. To provide proper healthcare to every child (and adult) on earth we'd need to stop the people who are currently limiting the availability of healthcare: the hospital cartels preventing the construction of new hospitals, the medical associations preventing the training of more doctors, the pharmaceutical companies preventing the free trade of medicines, and the governments colluding in all that. But they'll fight that every step of the way and one of them most effective ways they fight it is by talking about money, as if lack of healthcare spending was the problem. It's not. We'd actually spend less on a more accessible healthcare system, because all the people sucking the money and life out of the current system wouldn't be getting richer.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > the governments colluding in all that What possible incentive do governments worldwide have to actively prevent child healthcare? Even a cold-hearted monster who only cares about money has an economic incentive for the population generally to not die of easily preventable causes before retirement, and would know that letting them die before they enter the workforce is literally the most wasteful option. And almost nobody is that heartless about children.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      Unfortunately some politicians care more about money from donors, and the healthcare and pharma lobbies donate a lot of money. For example, why does the US government sanction countries that import or manufacture generic versions of patented drugs? Manufacturing these lifesaving drugs doesn't cost much. They could be sold much cheaper to a lot more people. These politicians probably don't think of it as actively preventing healthcare, but medications could be as cheap as Coca Cola if not for laws that prioritize profits over lives.
      - anthonygd 5y ago
        The healthcare industry does a lot of really shady things, but you're picking the worst example. No doubt drugs could be cheaper, but denying pharma an incentive to ever develop them is not the answer. Of course manufacturing is cheap, but the research and clinical trials are expensive and have to be paid for somehow. Focusing on only the manufacturing costs is a bizarre combination of dumb and disingenuous.

I find this logic quite interesting. Amazon is often the best employer many individuals have ever had in their areas.

by nojito 5y ago

I find this logic quite interesting. Amazon is often the best employer many individuals have ever had in their areas.

> many individuals What's the proportion of those to the total number of individuals employed, directly or indirectly by them?

WJW 5y ago

Yes, most of the world being so shitty that even Amazon is one of the better employers is one of the problems back on earth that needs to be fixed. It's always a little sad to see some researcher work out a ballpark estimate for (say) giving every child on earth proper healthcare and even the pessimistic estimates are no more than 10% of what the western world spends on cosmetics alone. That said, I don't begrudge Bezos&Branson their space race hobby. Certainly better than the "who has the biggest yacht" type of shenanigans most rich people get up to.

turbinerneiter 5y ago
Apperantly Jeff Bezos has a yacht that is so big that it comes with a smaller support yacht. The small one has a helipad.
- madengr 5y ago
  That keeps the people who build yachts employed. Which distributes more wealth, buying yachts or stocks?
- SwiftyBug 5y ago
  Rumor has it that the Evergiven was a trial to see if Bezos could cross the Suez canal on his smaller yacht.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    Some say that he could see his yacht from space on his flight. Some even claim that is the only way to see it in full size all at once.
throwawaycuriou 5y ago
Unsure if you intended with that example, but Bezos is among other things building a half billion USD yacht.
leereeves 5y ago
Bezos and Amazon aren't the reason children lack access to proper healthcare and taxing them won't fix that problem. To provide proper healthcare to every child (and adult) on earth we'd need to stop the people who are currently limiting the availability of healthcare: the hospital cartels preventing the construction of new hospitals, the medical associations preventing the training of more doctors, the pharmaceutical companies preventing the free trade of medicines, and the governments colluding in all that. But they'll fight that every step of the way and one of them most effective ways they fight it is by talking about money, as if lack of healthcare spending was the problem. It's not. We'd actually spend less on a more accessible healthcare system, because all the people sucking the money and life out of the current system wouldn't be getting richer.
- ben_w 5y ago
  > the governments colluding in all that What possible incentive do governments worldwide have to actively prevent child healthcare? Even a cold-hearted monster who only cares about money has an economic incentive for the population generally to not die of easily preventable causes before retirement, and would know that letting them die before they enter the workforce is literally the most wasteful option. And almost nobody is that heartless about children.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Unfortunately some politicians care more about money from donors, and the healthcare and pharma lobbies donate a lot of money. For example, why does the US government sanction countries that import or manufacture generic versions of patented drugs? Manufacturing these lifesaving drugs doesn't cost much. They could be sold much cheaper to a lot more people. These politicians probably don't think of it as actively preventing healthcare, but medications could be as cheap as Coca Cola if not for laws that prioritize profits over lives.
    - anthonygd 5y ago
      The healthcare industry does a lot of really shady things, but you're picking the worst example. No doubt drugs could be cheaper, but denying pharma an incentive to ever develop them is not the answer. Of course manufacturing is cheap, but the research and clinical trials are expensive and have to be paid for somehow. Focusing on only the manufacturing costs is a bizarre combination of dumb and disingenuous.