11 ms·

It deserves cynicism. If he wasn’t a jerk he’d just pay his employees more and maybe pay some taxes. When everyone is fair upfront they don’t need to give us

• havetocharge 5y ago
  His employees are free to seek a better paid employment if a jerk they work for underpays them. What's up with this nonstop handout mindset lately?
  • mtgx 5y ago
    Monopolies and corporate consolidations tend to limit one's job opportunities.
  • 015a 5y ago
    So its alright for rich CNN contributors to get handouts from Bezos, but unacceptable for average Americans?
    • pb7 5y ago
      It's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it. It's the same freedom afforded to everyone in this country.
      • 015a 5y ago
        I would bet similar things were said in 1790s France.
  • Hokusai 5y ago
    > His employees are free to seek a better paid employment if a jerk they work for underpays them. So, people have options to stop being poor, people have options to not have to pee in a bottle at work, but they chose to do it, why? Poverty removes many options, lack of good education removes many options, abusive corporations keep options far away. The system is the problem, people is just living in a system manipulated for the benefit of others. It's not a handout, it's asking for growth to be shared fairly. It's about taking care of our fellow humans. It's about creating a society that works for everyone and not just the few.
    • pb7 5y ago
      >people have options to not have to pee in a bottle at work Just because a few weird individuals chose to do this doesn't mean you have to do it. It's a folk tale used as a rallying cry against Amazon. It has as much meaning as Googlers earning $300K/year choosing to live in vans parked outside the office. Some people make questionable decisions. It doesn't speak at all to any sort of environmental problems.
      • bicknergseng 5y ago
        I'm curious if you actually think there's a real equivalency between choosing to eccentrically live in a van despite having more socially acceptable alternative options enabled by a salary far above the median vs making desperate moves to keep a poverty-low-but-not-the-absolute-lowest job that is designed to force turnover for all but the "highest performers." I understand there's a lot of hyperbole in a topic that deserves way more nuance, but IMO trying to make these seem the same causes more damage than anything else, since it drives this negatively reinforcing cycle where the effectively disenfranchised group of poverty wage workers somehow has a real stake at the table.
    • tailrecursion 5y ago
      And the handout-mentality people want to give that abusive system more power by demanding handouts on which they become dependent, and demanding censorship.
    • jimbokun 5y ago
      > It's not a handout, it's asking for growth to be shared fairly. It's about taking care of our fellow humans. It's about creating a society that works for everyone and not just the few. Stop with the feel good euphemisms! Which SPECIFIC policies do you want? Full blown communism? Single payer health care? Universal Basic Income? Every ACTUAL policy has costs, trade offs and drawbacks. Put actual dollar amounts on the table, and a rational discussion can take place. Just handwaving about a society where everyone someway somehow gets everything they need to happy, healthy, fulfilled, and self-actualized accomplishes nothing.
    • 5y ago
  • wedowhatwedo 5y ago
    What's up with this complete lack of empathy mindset lately? We hear this all the time "if you don't like it, leave". Quite often employees have very few options and their only leverage is to leave but not many people have large amounts of cash available to be unemployed.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • mrstone 5y ago
    Yeah, why don't they just stop being poor??
    • RIMR 5y ago
      I remember this from the bible.
  • RIMR 5y ago
    Expecting a living wage from a full-time job, especially when you're working for one of the most profitable companies in the country headed by the wealthiest man on the planet, isn't a "handout mindset". You'd have to be an absolute doormat to accept poverty in exchange for your full-time labor. "Get a different job" isn't the solution here, because there is clearly a massive demand for jobs at Amazon, and those jobs should pay people fairly for the work that they do.
    • bpt3 5y ago
      Define "fairly".
      • anigbrowl 5y ago
        S/he did in the first sentence. Please don't engage in this sort of verbal aggression.
        • bpt3 5y ago
          They did not. If you're referring to "living wage", that's not an objective or widely accepted metric. Please don't jump into conversations and chastise people for no reason, especially when you're incorrect.
          • anigbrowl 5y ago
            It's a widely discussed, easily understood, and thus popular yardstick, both among economists and the general public. I think you know this quite well. This isn't high school debate club and barking orders at people like 'define fairly' isn't clever, just rude.
            • bpt3 5y ago
              So you've decided to unilaterally determine my intent and tone, appoint yourself the arbiter of behavior, and inject yourself into a conversation to double down on your incorrect stance (from Wikipedia: "Due to the flexible nature of the term 'needs', there is not one universally accepted measure of what a living wage is...") and lecture me about rudeness? I'll pass on continuing this conversation, thanks.
• pb7 5y ago
  He pays all the taxes he owes.
  • missedthecue 5y ago
    And he isn't even involved in any arcane minimization schemes. ProPublica showed that he sold ~$4 billion in Amazon stock last year and paid a billion of it to the government.
    • monocasa 5y ago
      And made $100B that year. Can I get a 1% effective tax rate too?
      • cactus2093 5y ago
        Yes you can, just don't realize your capital gains.
        • monocasa 5y ago
          "Don't be poor" Like to hit 1% effective just living on $20k/yr is $2M/yr in capital gains.
      • pb7 5y ago
        His equity appreciated and will be taxed appropriately when it is sold.
        • monocasa 5y ago
          Except it doesn't get per se, loans are taken out and paid back on a schedule smaller than the appreciation of the stocks which were used as collateral. That's what that $1B was, and is relative scales we're talking about.
          • missedthecue 5y ago
• missedthecue 5y ago
  He pays all of his employees no less than what Bernie Sanders considers a living wage. At what point would people be satisfied that Bezos pays enough?
  • RIMR 5y ago
    Why is Bernie Sanders the authority here? Given inflation and a year-after-year growth in productivity, the minimum wage should be closer to $25/hour. Sanders falls way short of reality - but likely because the powers that be are more likely to compromise with a half-measure than give up more wealth to meaningfully improve America's economy by paying people equitably.
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      I never said he is the authority, but is probably the most prominent and well known Amazon critic on the planet today, and leads a huge populist movement that has been pushing for a 'living wage', which Sanders defines as $15/hr. My question remains - at what dollar amount will people be satisfied that Bezos is being fair?
      • homarp 5y ago
        > at what dollar amount will people be satisfied that Bezos is being fair? 70k a year :) https://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pay-mean-more-growth.html https://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pa... $15 an hour is $120 a day (8h) and $600 a week (5 days) and $2400 a month and $28800 a year. $20 an hour is $160 a day, $800 a week, $3200 a month and $38400 a year. $35 an hour is $280/d, $1400/w, $5600 a month and $67200 a year
  • tharne 5y ago
    Never. People with a scarcity mindset tend to be resentful of anyone who's achieved any level of success greater than their own.
    • Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
• xibalba 5y ago
  Wage growth is starting to take off in the US due to extremely fierce competition over job applicants. If, as you say, Amazon doesn't pay employees enough, they will leave in droves for better paying jobs. Of course, if your facts aren't correct, they won't. To wit, 71% of Amazon workers in the recent unionization drive in Alabama voted against a union, citing, of all things, the good pay and strong benefits of the job.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • cwkoss 5y ago
    Didn't Amazon also do a whole bunch of union busting before that vote, including trying to film the ballot box? (Or am I getting my Amazon union busting stories confused?) I wonder if 71% of workers who voted against the union really believed that, or what percentage just voted it down for fear of losing their jobs.
• ironrabbit 5y ago
  Genuine question because I'm out of the loop: it looks to me like the "Bezos doesn't pay taxes" argument is just pointing out that most of his wealth sits in unrealized gains in amazon stock. When he sells stock, he pays taxes. Is there more to it that I'm missing? Is the prevailing argument that we should be paying taxes on unrealized capital gains?
  • ohgodplsno 5y ago
    Bezos doesn't sell stock. What little he does goes into Blue Origin and is written off again. When Bezos needs cash, he just borrows from the bank using his shares as collateral. No taxes.
    • nomel 5y ago
      Borrowing mean returning the money at some point. Where does this money come from, and how isn't it taxed?
      • fossuser 5y ago
        Person dies, wealth gets inherited at new cost basis, heirs pay off loans with new (higher) cost basis, tax revenue isn’t collected. At least that’s the model as I understand it.
        • nomel 5y ago
          I assume this means the banks are giving > 40 years loans? Isn't inheritance tax fairly high? A quick search says 40% federal, with around 20% state.
          • fossuser 5y ago
            IIRC estate tax doesn't kick in until after ~$20M? I don't really know much about this particular area of tax law though so I wouldn't rely on my comments.
        • 5y ago
• prepend 5y ago
  > pay his employees more Doesn’t Amazon pay highest in its industry? I suppose people always want more, but it seems like they are already among the best. Of course pay varies by location and what’s good in one state is good in another. But it seems the average warehouse worker pay is $12.61 [0] with states ranging from $9.66 for North Carolina (holy cow) to $14.84 in Washington [1]. Amazon pays $16/hour [2] so that’s quite a big higher than the average and even the highest state. So it seems like an odd complaint, “the company with the highest pay should pay even more.” And would be more appropriate if they paid crap wages. Warehouse worker isn’t the easiest job, but I’m not sure how a warehouse worker job for Amazon is harder than other employers. [0] https://www.indeed.com/career/warehouse-worker/salaries https://www.indeed.com/career/warehouse-worker/salaries [1] https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Warehouse-Worker-Salary-by-State https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Wa... [2] https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Warehouse-Worker-Hourly-Pay-E6036_D_KO7,23.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Warehouse-Worker...
  • tw04 5y ago
    Your own link [0] shows they aren't even close to the highest (Sysco - $30.99). At $16/hr they don't make the top 25. And knowing people who work warehouse for Best Buy and Target ($19.33), the working conditions are so much better as to be incomparable to what Amazon does to warehouse workers. Ignoring the fact they get paid more.
    • prepend 5y ago
      So not the highest, but above average. It’s cool you know people who make $19.33 but I was referencing average pay. Target seems to pay $13.68/hour [0] and BestBuy $13.69 [1] so they pay substantially worse than Amazon. It’s hard to systematically understand working conditions though so hard to compare. But again, the claim that Amazon employees aren’t paid well seems unsubstantiated. [0] https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Target_Corporation/Hourly_Rate https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Target_Corpora... [1] https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Best_Buy/Hourly_Rate https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Best_Buy/Hourl...
• cactus2093 5y ago
  This line of argument is so completely unhinged. Bezos paid roughly $1B in taxes in 2018, and Amazon warehouses pay well above the minimum wage. I understand progressives wanting to raise taxes and raise minimum wage, but why in the world would you blame someone personally for just paying the going rate? That's what we all do for the taxes and service providers we pay.
  • asciimov 5y ago
    Bezos makes an easy identifiable target, much easier to call out Bezos than any of the Walton's of Walmart. The real issue is that major corporations aren't paying their fair share of the costs of running this country. From underpaying workers (who have to use public assistance) to getting sweetheart deals to build in your area. Thanks to amazon I have more heavy delivery trucks running up and down my street. Meaning that street wears out faster, meaning my tax money is gonna have to repave it.
    • bpt3 5y ago
      > major corporations aren't paying their fair share Define fair share. > From underpaying workers (who have to use public assistance) I'll never understand this line of reasoning. Would you rather have people who can't earn enough to support themselves earn $0 and rely entirely on public assistance? That's what will happen if you require employers to pay people more than the value they generate. > Thanks to amazon I have more heavy delivery trucks running up and down my street. Meaning that street wears out faster, meaning my tax money is gonna have to repave it. Presumably Amazon delivery trucks are using gasoline, and fuel/sales taxes should cover some of those repairs. Also, presumably those trucks are using those roads because members of the community are asking Amazon to deliver stuff to them, so I don't see why the community shouldn't bear some of the burden of repairing the roads as well.
      • asciimov 5y ago
        > Define fair share. Fair share, the cost to run the country. For most people that's 33% of what we make a year. For megacorps that can be as much as nothing. > I'll never understand this line of reasoning. While I understand how some people don't want to give individuals handouts, I don't understand how those same people are ok giving large corporations handouts. Take Walmart. If the poverty line where the local government steps up to help people out is $12.25 an hour (for 40 hours worked a week), and Walmart only pays out $7.25 per hour (for 40 hours), the it's on the local government to help those people out by giving them that extra $5 an hour. Well that means that walmart didn't pay the real rate for local wages, and the local tax payers got stuck with the bill. > Would you rather have people who can't earn enough to support themselves earn $0 and rely entirely on public assistance? Maybe, at least I'm subsidizing individuals and not the shareholders of Walmart. If we free up that person from the burden of working their dead end Walmart job, they would have an opportunity to improve themselves. Sure, many wont, but some will. I don't see how giving that same handout to Walmart helps any individual, those who own Walmart already have plenty. > Presumably Amazon delivery trucks are using gasoline, and fuel/sales taxes should cover some of those repairs. We could debate how fair those gas taxes are, and if they pay for themselves. I don't mind paying for the right to use the road, but many roads weren't built to handle the increased delivery traffic. That delivery traffic is a new burden that Bezos created and got rich off of. Surely the company that gained the most from using the public roads deserves to be billed for their upkeep.
• jimbokun 5y ago
  I don't understand the point about trying to make this a character referendum on one specific billionaire. Just make federal minimum wage $15 / hour and be done with it. Why is there so much rhetorical energy wasted on singling out one billionaire or another, as if they are going to feel bad and unilaterally raise everyone's wages in some kind of real world Ebeneezer Scrooge moment? Democrats technically control Presidency and both US Houses of Congress, but it's looking like they won't accomplish anything because of Manchin's love for the sanctity of the filibuster is greater than his love for delivering concrete economic benefits for his constituents.
• imgabe 5y ago
  If you weren’t a jerk you’d pay $100 for a gallon of milk when you go to the store so the workers could have some extra money. Why are you such a jerk that you don’t pay more for things than what they cost?
• andrepd 5y ago
  Absolutely. I don't want my fief Lord to throw me a morsel of food every now and then. I want to throw him down from his castle and share our wealth fairly, so I can buy my own food myself.