4 ms·

I guess the sentiment is that some people believe it'd have been better if he'd paid his employees better, rather than join the existing group of companies on a

I guess the sentiment is that some people believe it'd have been better if he'd paid his employees better, rather than join the existing group of companies on a venture that doesn't show obvious benefits for the current world (aside from R&D, which might be tricky to explain the joys of to a delivery driver stressed from their 9-9 job). The bit that stings is that he could have done both and still been the richest man in the world.

knorker 5y ago
But that applies to everything. It's the same argument as "how dare you keep a bank balance while people are starving in the world?". You have no obligation to spend your own money based on other people's preference, and if you do then you'd better keep yourself to that standard. Some do, but extremely few. You could probably give more money to GiveWell than you do, and save lives, and still live your lifestyle. But you don't. It's a difference in degree, but not in kind.
- pwinnski 5y ago
  It is a difference in both kind and degree. In kind: my income is not the direct result of creating the conditions that cause others to rely on GiveWell. In degree: sometimes the degree matters, and Bezos is a prime example of that[0]. If I give up 1% of my accumulated wealth to alleviate $1000 of suffering, that helps a small number of people and affects my lifestyle not terribly much. If Jeff Bezos gives up the same percentage of his accumulated wealth, that helps many, many, many more people and affects his lifestyle even less. The degree absolutely matters. Among the people that could be helped dramatically would be Amazon warehouse employees. 0. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
  - knorker 5y ago
    I disagree. It may not be as direct, but if you're on HN then your lifestyle is likely supported off of the back of poor exploited people. Sure, it's not your fault that Foxconn employees jump off buildings, but it is why you have your lifestyle. (that's meant to be illustrative, not literal. Hence overly specific to Foxconn) Sure, it's not in the same way through your direct choices, but like Bezos you are playing the game, and choosing not to reward those supporting your lifestyle. But more importantly here Bezos is choosing this, as opposed to buying some more and bigger private islands. Yet he's being criticised for this more than if I had. > If Jeff Bezos gives up the same percentage of his accumulated wealth, that helps many, many, many more people and affects his lifestyle even less. As someone else wisely pointed out: Bezos has already helped people more than you have. That's how he got his money. People telling him he "should" give away most or all are ignoring that he earned his vast wealth by creating orders of magnitude larger wealth in the world, and taking a cut for providing what wealth. Yes, Amazon has done some pretty shady stuff (see book "The Everything Store", for example), but Amazon got big from providing value to people. That said, no I don't think there should be decabillionaires at all. Nobody can "earn" that much. Nobody is truly that irreplaceable. But given that he is that rich, this spending isn't the unfairness you're looking for.

knorker 5y ago

But that applies to everything. It's the same argument as "how dare you keep a bank balance while people are starving in the world?". You have no obligation to spend your own money based on other people's preference, and if you do then you'd better keep yourself to that standard. Some do, but extremely few. You could probably give more money to GiveWell than you do, and save lives, and still live your lifestyle. But you don't. It's a difference in degree, but not in kind.

pwinnski 5y ago
It is a difference in both kind and degree. In kind: my income is not the direct result of creating the conditions that cause others to rely on GiveWell. In degree: sometimes the degree matters, and Bezos is a prime example of that[0]. If I give up 1% of my accumulated wealth to alleviate $1000 of suffering, that helps a small number of people and affects my lifestyle not terribly much. If Jeff Bezos gives up the same percentage of his accumulated wealth, that helps many, many, many more people and affects his lifestyle even less. The degree absolutely matters. Among the people that could be helped dramatically would be Amazon warehouse employees. 0. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
- knorker 5y ago
  I disagree. It may not be as direct, but if you're on HN then your lifestyle is likely supported off of the back of poor exploited people. Sure, it's not your fault that Foxconn employees jump off buildings, but it is why you have your lifestyle. (that's meant to be illustrative, not literal. Hence overly specific to Foxconn) Sure, it's not in the same way through your direct choices, but like Bezos you are playing the game, and choosing not to reward those supporting your lifestyle. But more importantly here Bezos is choosing this, as opposed to buying some more and bigger private islands. Yet he's being criticised for this more than if I had. > If Jeff Bezos gives up the same percentage of his accumulated wealth, that helps many, many, many more people and affects his lifestyle even less. As someone else wisely pointed out: Bezos has already helped people more than you have. That's how he got his money. People telling him he "should" give away most or all are ignoring that he earned his vast wealth by creating orders of magnitude larger wealth in the world, and taking a cut for providing what wealth. Yes, Amazon has done some pretty shady stuff (see book "The Everything Store", for example), but Amazon got big from providing value to people. That said, no I don't think there should be decabillionaires at all. Nobody can "earn" that much. Nobody is truly that irreplaceable. But given that he is that rich, this spending isn't the unfairness you're looking for.