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

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.