Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 548 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#351

Post by pas »

sumedh wrote: post #265
Retra wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was far less risky for Bezos to start his business than most of his current employees. He was wealthy before he started.

If you believe in your idea get a loan from family, friends or banks or get a high paying job save money and then start your business. Starting and running a successful business is not easy which is why the rewards should go to the risk taker.

Someone working in a fulfillment center making ~40-50K each year won't be able to put together 100K capital to risk, even with family and friends.

A large portion of HN readers are entrepreneurs, a lot of stories here tell the tale of failure, the burden and how to bear it. Yes it's not easy.

And then there are people for the "not easy" is virtually impossible. Because they can't even start a business with any chance to succeed.

I'm not saying, that because of this Bezos should give more to the employees, but it'd be good if these inherent inequalities were better managed by society.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#352

Post by archagon »

guskel wrote: post #334
archagon wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet he's now one of the richest people in the world. As an employee, is Bezos really a million times more valuable than a typical Amazon engineer? That seems almost self-evidently unfair to me. I think in a truly just society, the multiplier on the amount that a single individual could be compensated compared to his or her peers would have a hard cap. It would solve so many societal problems and also incentivize…

It's the reward for past work, not current. Imagine kid A studies really hard during his youth and doesn't get to have any fun because he's working so hard. Kid B likes to slack off and party and do drugs. If Kid A grows up and makes it big, why does kid B deserve half? Why should he deserve any portion? You could tax kid A's wealth but you can't tax kid B's youth and pleasure. Why put a cap on on kid A's wealth if y…

Well, I'm not necessarily suggesting that wealth be distributed equally throughout all society. But maybe we would be better off if wealth and ownership operated on a more human scale. Even in a massive company like Amazon, no matter how hard A works or how much B goes on Reddit, A will never be one million times more valuable than B. That sort of piece-of-every-pie money is an absurdity. In my fantasy economy, A could still be rewarded for their hard work, but perhaps on the order of millions instead of tens of billions. There's no intrinsic reason why people should be able to acquire material wealth with no upper limit.

I strongly believe that in order to build a better world, we have to stop thinking in terms of people "deserving" things and instead focus on what's better for society overall.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#353

Post by orbifold »

hamilyon2 wrote: post #302
psyc wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny to find this top comment, since I just had this exact train of thought an hour ago. It went something like this. It's a common unexamined platitude that it takes a huge amount of work, and especially sacrifice to be able to live well. That might well be true under certain conditions of, say, undeveloped agrarian civilizations. It shouldn't still be true of ours, and yet it is. Our infrastructure and supply chai…

The problem is that without those pople up there we lose quote a bit of efficiency as a sosiety. Game theory does not work out without owners.

Such arguments are such nonsense, that you should probably not make them without going into much more detail. It is common knowledge that almost all macro economic models we currently have are very crude approximations, so you are in no position to deduce anything with the certainty and "it's game theory" attitude that you seem to have.

In other words: Economics is not physics, there you say something like "Well, energy is always conserved" or "This does not work because of the second law of thermodynamics", you can't do that with "Game theory".

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#354

Post by sooheon »

khazhoux wrote: post #348
mjfl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence, whereas Jeff Bezos got rich because you gave him money in exchange for products. Like, "Hey, here's this cool electronic device called the Amazon Echo for $50." is a markedly different from "Farm here or I'll decapitate you." The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terr…

He didn't acquire it through violence, so there's nothing to see here. Move along, people. A handful of people control as much wealth as the world's population combined, but there's nothing here to concern any of us, since they didn't do it with sword and cannons like a few hundred years ago. In fact, since the days of imperial conquest by force are pretty much over (minus the occasional here and there), we really sh…

Is Poe's law making a fool of me, or do you truly believe this?

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#355

Post by rorykoehler »

logicchains wrote: post #303
milesrout wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is inherently violent whether you like it or not. The police violently repress anyone seeking what they have a natural right to: their fair share of the wealth.

People have a natural right to the results of others' toils solely by virtue of having been born?

That's kind of why the West is rich ... well it wasn't so natural but hundreds of years of on-going colonialism made it so.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#356

Post by rohit89 »

archagon wrote: post #324
824ueirwfjd wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think in a perfect society, this sort of cash flow would be severely tempered. The problem is if we had your society, there would be no Jeff Bezos or similar capitalistic-minded entrepreneurs to create these mega companies in the first place. Remember it started out small.

I think most of the big players today would have started out just the same. People like Jobs & Woz, Page & Brin, Bezos, and Musk didn't get in the game to make billions, at least at first. They wanted to change the world, or maybe pursue an interesting opening, or perhaps chase after a fascinating new technology. In a more equal society, these instincts would hardly be curtailed. And even if you're right, maybe a wor…

The fundamental issue here is human behavior. Whatever system you come up with, people will come up with ways to turn it to their advantage.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#357

Post by greenhatman »

muninn_ wrote: post #203
mhermher wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point.

Which is why the most morally consistent position is to be an anarchist. Perhaps not practical in many cases, but morally defensible.

Anarchism is a paradox though. Because it doesn't exist naturally. We always develop some kind of hierarchy. To do away with hierarchy, we need some kind of enforcement body. And how do we get that without some kind of hierarchy?

I'm kind of anarchic myself, in that I like decentralization of power and resources.

I think the key is to realize that no ideology will work by itself in its absolutist form. Rather we try to get close to it.

So the question to me is, how do we get relative equality without losing the benefits of companies like Google and Amazon.

It's a hard problem. Maybe we're already at the best compromise?

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#358

Post by saiya-jin »

rdtsc wrote: post #291
mjfl wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a little hyperbolic. In feudalism the balance of power is enforced by violence, whereas Jeff Bezos got rich because you gave him money in exchange for products. Like, "Hey, here's this cool electronic device called the Amazon Echo for $50." is a markedly different from "Farm here or I'll decapitate you." The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terr…

> "Farm here or I'll decapitate you." I think you got confused, that's communism. :P And it's not decapitation (too messy) it is a bullet to the back of the head or death in a labor camp. Feudalism is "you can farm here but you owe me and your promise to fight in my wars". > The fact that you harbor a resentment as if the former is anything like the latter is slightly terrifying. Really? Is it terrifying to compare a…

> Feudalism is "you can farm here but you owe me and your promise to fight in my wars".

+ if you will marry, I have every right to fuck your new wife on your wedding night, just before you. with church blessing. good luck figuring our if your first kid is yours or not. or having happy marriage.

+ I can kill you, anytime, for no reason, without consequence, horribly slow. or whole village. the only motivation to not do so is losing a bit of wealth since you all are my property, nothing more. but sometimes I can afford to lose a bit of property, just for the fun of it.

> Really? Is it terrifying to compare a vassal's contract with the "work for me in the warehouse and I'll pay you a minimum wage, if you don't like, there is a line waiting at the door". They are not the same, it's a bit silly but is that sending shivers down our spine?

WTF? there is a whole world to discover, to (re)define yourself, endless amounts of activities/job to take if really wanted/needed. you are FREE to choose your own fate. even building next amazon if you can do it. your skills and sky is the only real limit. so yes, comparing those 2 sends shivers down my spine too, since this is just envy. don't blame some rich guy for wrong choices earlier in your life (ie what to study).

don't forget, horrible things like communism are built on envy and sense of entitlement.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#359

Post by viuduib »

sumedh wrote: post #254
andrepd wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, Bezos didn't create more value than 100,000,000s of people. How could he? He started it, sure, he owns it and he directs it, but Amazon employs 341,000 people. Those are the people who generate the bulk of the value produced by the Amazon company, yet they share in very little of the value they produced. Would you say a CEO is responsible for all the value the company makes? Would you say it's fair for a feudal…

> yet they share in very little of the value they produced. Those employees are free to start their own companies. If you take the risk of starting a business then you should get the rewards if it succeeds.

Oh yeh, because creating a startup is a breeze isn't it ? And most anyone could simply drop every commitment in their lives and like 4 years later they're rich! Why doesn't everyone do that, given they're free to do it ? Well, because they're not free to, not at all.

90% of people are strapped into financial obligations and have families. None of these people can afford to risk starting a business, even if they would be good at it and had the money, support and contacts required. Even among the usually already wealthy people who can afford to risk a startup, 90% of them fail.

What you're really saying is: if you inherited the freedom to risk creating a startup, and you are one of the lucky 10% who make it a success, then you deserve to enjoy the rewards.

Re: Jeff Bezos Is Now the World's Second Richest Person

#360

Post by greenhatman »

sooheon wrote: post #354
khazhoux wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't acquire it through violence, so there's nothing to see here. Move along, people. A handful of people control as much wealth as the world's population combined, but there's nothing here to concern any of us, since they didn't do it with sword and cannons like a few hundred years ago. In fact, since the days of imperial conquest by force are pretty much over (minus the occasional here and there), we really sh…

Is Poe's law making a fool of me, or do you truly believe this?

He is sarcastic. But it's also a false dichotomy. It is different from taking things by force. There is in general mutual benefit between all involved parties.

Though that doesn't mean we can just completely relax. We should stay vigilant, because tyranny is always just around the corner.

Post reply on HN