5 ms·

> They made billions from excellent businesses Bezos is not 1 million times more productive than other human beings. He just managed to create a system that ex

> They made billions from excellent businesses Bezos is not 1 million times more productive than other human beings. He just managed to create a system that exploits people in a massive scale. That's not what I call excellent business.

pb7 5y ago
Who said that he was? Wealth has little to do with productivity.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Yes, and perhaps that might be a problem, don't you think?
  - pb7 5y ago
    No. I want people to keep being incentivized to create innovative companies, products, and services that make my life easier and more enjoyable. The people that are successful in doing so will reap rewards many orders of magnitude more than their employees that did not take on any risk and whose output is measured by “productivity”.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Do you think people would no longer be incentivized if there were, for example, a cap on how much money/wealth they could own? Let's say the limit was $1 billion, to start with. The only counter-argument I can think of is that SpaceX might have run out of money if Elon "only" had $1 billion to pour into it, but I believe he started the company with just a $100 million investment of his own money. I'd also accept people being able to funnel billions into non-profit foundations which they control, as long as those foundations have goals which vaguely benefit society, such as "making humans a multi-planetary species".
    - andrepd 5y ago
      > I want people to keep being incentivized to create innovative companies, products, and services that make my life easier and more enjoyable. Funny, I do too! That's why I don't want all the wealth and power in the hands of a few oligarchs, and that's why I want everyone to be properly compensated and rewarded for their work and their creations. Capitalism, especially in its current flavour, prevents this. > their employees that did not take on any risk If a business fails and closes down its employees will be out on the dole, and that's the best case scenario. They lose their health care, possibly their homes and other possessions. Capital risks what, materially? One less luxury auto? One less vacation across the globe this year? Probably not even that. I confess I never really understood all that talk about "risk".
      - pb7 5y ago
        Well then if it's so easy, then why doesn't everyone just start their own businesses? There's no risk after all. Get a loan from a bank and start a small business -- millions of people do this around the world! Easy. Guaranteed wealth, right? >If a business fails and closes down its employees will be out on the dole, and that's the best case scenario. They lose their health care, possibly their homes and other possessions. No, best (and most likely) scenario is that they find a job elsewhere a few weeks later while they collect unemployment. The business owner who likely had no savings because everything was reinvested into the business is actually screwed. You keep thinking every owner is Jeff Bezos but there are millions of small to medium business owners who risk it all for the chance to make it big. It's not "one less luxury auto". It's their entire livelihood. Since you think that employees should share in the equity when a company is as successful as Amazon, I take it you also agree that employees should have all of their past wages clawed back when the company goes out of business, right? It's only fair. If they helped take the company to success, then they must have also brought it down to failure as well.
        coliveira 5y ago
        > Get a loan from a bank and start a small business That's the point: Bezos didn't get a loan from a bank, he just raised money from other rich people. He never had even the risk of repaying a bank loan, for Christ's sake! Most people who want to start small business are a much more precarious situation, and that's why they don't start businesses as easily as you want.
    - coliveira 5y ago
      > employees that did not take on any risk You must be kidding that Bezos took any risk... The only risk he had was that he wouldn't continue making money from his well paid Wall Street job. He was already well off when he started raising other people's money to found Amazon. So, no, he didn't take any risk to justify all this money. Only the very deluded think he did anything of great risk. He is an oligarch who exploit others, and doesn't deserve even a fraction of that fortune.
      - pb7 5y ago
        Yes… that is the risk. He was already comfortable and could have had a guaranteed easy life but he decided to throw that away to start Amazon that could have failed after many years of foregoing his cushy salary. Most people wouldn’t have taken this risk in his position and that’s why they will never have a chance to be wealthy like him. Your foot stomping won’t change that.
        coliveira 5y ago
        That's not risk at all. He wouldn't lose a cent, he was just trading one big salary for a potentially bigger fortune.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    So maybe we should be taxing wealth instead of productivity (i.e. income). Or at least let's tax both, with a 0% tax rate on the first $100m of wealth. The median US household pays an amount of tax each year equivalent to about 8% of their net worth, so that would be an obvious rate for billionaires to pay on their wealth.
  - AndrewKemendo 5y ago
    I've yet to see a practical alternative to market based pricing that doesn't require rewiring humans at a massive scale.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      Markets ≠ Capitalism
peteretep 5y ago
> Bezos is not 1 million times more productive Bezos has unambiguously produced 1m times more than what most humans have.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Would you also say that Joshua John Ward produced 1m times more rice than most humans have? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_John_Ward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_John_Ward
- djenendik 5y ago
  I've written 10 million lines of code. Can I get a ride to Mars too?
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    Nobody cares about your 10 million lines of code, so good luck.
- effingwewt 5y ago
  No he hasn't produced anything. The people making all the things his platform sells and his employees do. He sits on high in his ivory tower, never has that been more apparent.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
He has created million or more times more value than an average human being. To make it simple. Would you live in a village where you have 1000 people with 1 apple to eat, or 999 people with 3 apples to eat and one guy with 1000 apples, because he was able to find a way to grow many more apples per day? Conclusion: Jeff Bezos has added enormous amounts of value to the world. I guess you will probably say something like, "but I would like to live in a world where this person must give away most of those apples, until he maybe has only 6 apples per day and others have 4". Would this person have still been as motivated to take a risk - which entrepreneurism is all about? Especially knowing that maybe 5% of the start ups will succeed. In such world, no one will take risks and everyone stays with 1 or 2 apples per day. There's a reason US has so many successful unicorn start ups. It takes skill, talent, passion, resources and massive amount of luck to pull of what Jeff Bezos did. In a more socialized version of this system, it would have not happened. The more you tax potential returns and reward, the less risk or resources would people be willing to put in to create something new.
- vk23 5y ago
  So in Bezos case with his estimated net worth of 205B USD and assuming a average net worth of an american family of 750k (not sure how accurate this number is it was the first thing on google) this comes down to Bezos owning 266666 Apples for every apple a "normal" famliy owns. Noone would complain if it was a 1000 to 3 ratio. Almost noone argues that we should take all his apples away but I think there is a lot of room before he has to feel like his risk is not worth it anymore. The only issue Amazon would have in a more socialized society is that it would be way harder to exploit poor people that have to take up with their working conditions and wages because they rely on those jobs. And if your business cannot survive without exploitation it should not exist in the first place.
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    I'm still thinking that any bigger taxation could decrease potential risk taking and/or investments into new potentially innovative avenues. Maybe there could be a golden taxation point that's higher than it is now, but I also think it's definitely possible that it would work out worse overall for everyone. If there's 1000 to 3 ratio, the things small group of people could organize to build would be far off what individuals could start with today. If a single individual who has a good idea, they would have to convince many more people that the idea is good in order to be able to proceed with it. Also, why does it even matter that much what Jeff's net worth specifically is? Unless he's wasting that money or using that to purposely destroy the world, it just exists as a number and if it was divided between people, it would only increase prices of everything and we probably would be back where we started. And it would only benefit the world if the people the money was divided with would use the money more wisely as opposed to Jeff. If they can't get over 1000 to 3 ratio or certain ratio, because of the taxes, why would those folks just not rest on their laurels?

pb7 5y ago

Who said that he was? Wealth has little to do with productivity.

andrepd 5y ago
Yes, and perhaps that might be a problem, don't you think?
- pb7 5y ago
  No. I want people to keep being incentivized to create innovative companies, products, and services that make my life easier and more enjoyable. The people that are successful in doing so will reap rewards many orders of magnitude more than their employees that did not take on any risk and whose output is measured by “productivity”.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Do you think people would no longer be incentivized if there were, for example, a cap on how much money/wealth they could own? Let's say the limit was $1 billion, to start with. The only counter-argument I can think of is that SpaceX might have run out of money if Elon "only" had $1 billion to pour into it, but I believe he started the company with just a $100 million investment of his own money. I'd also accept people being able to funnel billions into non-profit foundations which they control, as long as those foundations have goals which vaguely benefit society, such as "making humans a multi-planetary species".
  - andrepd 5y ago
    > I want people to keep being incentivized to create innovative companies, products, and services that make my life easier and more enjoyable. Funny, I do too! That's why I don't want all the wealth and power in the hands of a few oligarchs, and that's why I want everyone to be properly compensated and rewarded for their work and their creations. Capitalism, especially in its current flavour, prevents this. > their employees that did not take on any risk If a business fails and closes down its employees will be out on the dole, and that's the best case scenario. They lose their health care, possibly their homes and other possessions. Capital risks what, materially? One less luxury auto? One less vacation across the globe this year? Probably not even that. I confess I never really understood all that talk about "risk".
    - pb7 5y ago
      Well then if it's so easy, then why doesn't everyone just start their own businesses? There's no risk after all. Get a loan from a bank and start a small business -- millions of people do this around the world! Easy. Guaranteed wealth, right? >If a business fails and closes down its employees will be out on the dole, and that's the best case scenario. They lose their health care, possibly their homes and other possessions. No, best (and most likely) scenario is that they find a job elsewhere a few weeks later while they collect unemployment. The business owner who likely had no savings because everything was reinvested into the business is actually screwed. You keep thinking every owner is Jeff Bezos but there are millions of small to medium business owners who risk it all for the chance to make it big. It's not "one less luxury auto". It's their entire livelihood. Since you think that employees should share in the equity when a company is as successful as Amazon, I take it you also agree that employees should have all of their past wages clawed back when the company goes out of business, right? It's only fair. If they helped take the company to success, then they must have also brought it down to failure as well.
      - coliveira 5y ago
        > Get a loan from a bank and start a small business That's the point: Bezos didn't get a loan from a bank, he just raised money from other rich people. He never had even the risk of repaying a bank loan, for Christ's sake! Most people who want to start small business are a much more precarious situation, and that's why they don't start businesses as easily as you want.
  - coliveira 5y ago
    > employees that did not take on any risk You must be kidding that Bezos took any risk... The only risk he had was that he wouldn't continue making money from his well paid Wall Street job. He was already well off when he started raising other people's money to found Amazon. So, no, he didn't take any risk to justify all this money. Only the very deluded think he did anything of great risk. He is an oligarch who exploit others, and doesn't deserve even a fraction of that fortune.
    - pb7 5y ago
      Yes… that is the risk. He was already comfortable and could have had a guaranteed easy life but he decided to throw that away to start Amazon that could have failed after many years of foregoing his cushy salary. Most people wouldn’t have taken this risk in his position and that’s why they will never have a chance to be wealthy like him. Your foot stomping won’t change that.
      - coliveira 5y ago
        That's not risk at all. He wouldn't lose a cent, he was just trading one big salary for a potentially bigger fortune.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  So maybe we should be taxing wealth instead of productivity (i.e. income). Or at least let's tax both, with a 0% tax rate on the first $100m of wealth. The median US household pays an amount of tax each year equivalent to about 8% of their net worth, so that would be an obvious rate for billionaires to pay on their wealth.
- AndrewKemendo 5y ago
  I've yet to see a practical alternative to market based pricing that doesn't require rewiring humans at a massive scale.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Markets ≠ Capitalism

peteretep 5y ago

> Bezos is not 1 million times more productive Bezos has unambiguously produced 1m times more than what most humans have.

dane-pgp 5y ago
Would you also say that Joshua John Ward produced 1m times more rice than most humans have? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_John_Ward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_John_Ward
djenendik 5y ago
I've written 10 million lines of code. Can I get a ride to Mars too?
- shukantpal 5y ago
  Nobody cares about your 10 million lines of code, so good luck.
effingwewt 5y ago
No he hasn't produced anything. The people making all the things his platform sells and his employees do. He sits on high in his ivory tower, never has that been more apparent.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

He has created million or more times more value than an average human being. To make it simple. Would you live in a village where you have 1000 people with 1 apple to eat, or 999 people with 3 apples to eat and one guy with 1000 apples, because he was able to find a way to grow many more apples per day? Conclusion: Jeff Bezos has added enormous amounts of value to the world. I guess you will probably say something like, "but I would like to live in a world where this person must give away most of those apples, until he maybe has only 6 apples per day and others have 4". Would this person have still been as motivated to take a risk - which entrepreneurism is all about? Especially knowing that maybe 5% of the start ups will succeed. In such world, no one will take risks and everyone stays with 1 or 2 apples per day. There's a reason US has so many successful unicorn start ups. It takes skill, talent, passion, resources and massive amount of luck to pull of what Jeff Bezos did. In a more socialized version of this system, it would have not happened. The more you tax potential returns and reward, the less risk or resources would people be willing to put in to create something new.

vk23 5y ago
So in Bezos case with his estimated net worth of 205B USD and assuming a average net worth of an american family of 750k (not sure how accurate this number is it was the first thing on google) this comes down to Bezos owning 266666 Apples for every apple a "normal" famliy owns. Noone would complain if it was a 1000 to 3 ratio. Almost noone argues that we should take all his apples away but I think there is a lot of room before he has to feel like his risk is not worth it anymore. The only issue Amazon would have in a more socialized society is that it would be way harder to exploit poor people that have to take up with their working conditions and wages because they rely on those jobs. And if your business cannot survive without exploitation it should not exist in the first place.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  I'm still thinking that any bigger taxation could decrease potential risk taking and/or investments into new potentially innovative avenues. Maybe there could be a golden taxation point that's higher than it is now, but I also think it's definitely possible that it would work out worse overall for everyone. If there's 1000 to 3 ratio, the things small group of people could organize to build would be far off what individuals could start with today. If a single individual who has a good idea, they would have to convince many more people that the idea is good in order to be able to proceed with it. Also, why does it even matter that much what Jeff's net worth specifically is? Unless he's wasting that money or using that to purposely destroy the world, it just exists as a number and if it was divided between people, it would only increase prices of everything and we probably would be back where we started. And it would only benefit the world if the people the money was divided with would use the money more wisely as opposed to Jeff. If they can't get over 1000 to 3 ratio or certain ratio, because of the taxes, why would those folks just not rest on their laurels?