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

381–390 of 548 posts

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

#381

Post by sumedh »

dredmorbius wrote: post #301
sumedh wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're begging the question (and yes, that's proper use): why should all the rewards go to those who've taken some risk? What of the risks taken by others? Are there uncompensated risk-bearing activities? Are there activities with low risk but high return? Suppose, say, dropping a drill bit next to the guy who's just blown in a gusher? Or securing control of the pipelines, railroads, and refineries by which that oil…

> What of the risks taken by others?

What risks do employees take, they are getting a salary. If they are not happy they can leave and get another job. The founder has to put everything in it, his money, time, relationships, reputation. This is not "some risk", he cannot just walk away.

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

#382

Post by sumedh »

viuduib wrote: post #359
sumedh wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 90% of people are strapped into financial obligations and have families.

So they have to prioritise what is important, if they feel that starting a business is more important, they will avoid getting financial obligations and starting a family.

This is also part of the overall risks, you might be better off just being an employee with a normal life instead of being a failed entrepreneur.

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

#383

Post by edge17 »

sudhirj wrote: post #375

I just don't get this complaining about wealth concentration - for every person capable of complaining on an online forum that some people have 100 to 1000x the wealth they do, there are also likely to be more people that exist who have 1000x less than you. How exactly am I any more entitled to the wealth of those richer than me, than are those poorer than me entitled to my (relative) wealth? It seems to me that the…

You seem to be missing basic irrational aspects of human nature.

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

#384

Post by terryf »

dragonwriter wrote: post #347
iamnotlarry wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with that. The daughter of a wealthy estate might receive the very best in private education, music lessons, etc. She might take her allowance and start a successful business. She might just have a successful business because of all her parents' social connections. Then dad dies. How do you propose to nullify all the advantages she still enjoys because of her father's wealth? Can you take away the child's b…

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism. I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death. I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly…

So where's the line?

I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature.

What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, except the education my single mother gave me) to get an edge in life.

You want to take that option away from me? Sorry, not gonna work.

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

#385

Post by devmop »

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.

What risk? That they'd spend money on something that made them no/less money?

Other than their initial investments business owners are protected from almost all the risks their businesses take on. Company debts aren't personal debts and individuals can't be forced to work to repay the debts they cause the business to take on. Worse still these safety nets aren't paid for as these companies don't make a profit.

Whilst I won't discount the work Bezos has done the reason he's come out 1000s of times better off than other Amazon workers is because of his initial gamble.

It's not like the workers don't take on risks either. Almost all paid work is paid after the fact. If your employer goes bust you don't get paid

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

#386

Post by sumedh »

devmop wrote: post #385
sumedh wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What risk? That they'd spend money on something that made them no/less money? Other than their initial investments business owners are protected from almost all the risks their businesses take on. Company debts aren't personal debts and individuals can't be forced to work to repay the debts they cause the business to take on. Worse still these safety nets aren't paid for as these companies don't make a profit. Whilst…

> What risk?

Financial, health, relationships, reputation, opportunity are some of the risks.

Are you saying that an employee getting a salary has the same risks as an entrepreneur?

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

#387

Post by efaref »

sudhirj wrote: post #375

I just don't get this complaining about wealth concentration - for every person capable of complaining on an online forum that some people have 100 to 1000x the wealth they do, there are also likely to be more people that exist who have 1000x less than you. How exactly am I any more entitled to the wealth of those richer than me, than are those poorer than me entitled to my (relative) wealth? It seems to me that the…

The problem isn't that Bezos has 1,000x my net worth. He has 1,000,000x my (approximate) net worth. One millionth of my net worth is seven cents, so Bezos:me is me:$0.07.

The graph isn't logarithmic. It's shaped like this:

                |
                |
                |
    ____________|

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

#388

Post by m12k »

sudhirj wrote: post #375

I just don't get this complaining about wealth concentration - for every person capable of complaining on an online forum that some people have 100 to 1000x the wealth they do, there are also likely to be more people that exist who have 1000x less than you. How exactly am I any more entitled to the wealth of those richer than me, than are those poorer than me entitled to my (relative) wealth? It seems to me that the…

Capitalism, when it works right is a meritocracy that rewards business acumen - the more merit, the more money you get. The problem is that the reward - money - is itself a substitute for merit. Having success is much, much easier, if you already have money (hence the saying 'the first million dollars is always the hardest'). This is also what Capital in the Twenty-First Century highlighted: Owning wealth is rewarded more than working. But it is (or at least can be) a largely passive 'activity' that anyone can do (just how much talent does it take to hand some money to a hedge fund manager and live off the interest?). Even just at a smaller scale, people can mismanage a business and still succeed if they have a big enough marketing budget to drown out their (objectively better) competitors. So the argument is that we are doing a suboptimal distribution of resources, because the people that have the most money are in a positive feedback loop that awards them more money, and that is a local optimization that prevents us from finding the global optimum where that money was in the hands of someone with more business acumen.

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

#389

Post by zer0tonin »

ImSkeptical wrote: post #213
mhermher wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property is violence. If I try to take something that "isn't my property", the state will intervene with violence (e.g. forced imprisonment, etc.) on behalf of the person deemed to be the "lawful owner".

I haven't seen opinion polls, but I doubt that's a widely held view. Why should people conform to your unusual position on property, as opposed to the mainstream one? Personally, I quite like owning things that are mine. The cost, that other people can own things that are theirs and not mine, seems well worth it.

>Why should people conform to your unusual position on property, as opposed to the mainstream one?

That's a nice fallacy you've got here, and that would imply that his opinion is actually uncommon around people who have studied the subject (spoiler : it's not).

>Personally, I quite like owning things that are mine.

Possession and property are not the same thing.

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

#390

Post by terryf »

dougmany wrote: post #149
zvpxdlk wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any less intelligent or hard working Not necessarily true. Luck plays a big role in things like this but Bezos is clearly in the elite when it comes to effective professionals.

How many times more effective? As the difference between what humans can do and what computers can do increases, we become relatively closer.

Part of being effective is leveraging your abilities via managing other people. An effective manager can make 10 people each perform 10x more effectively when working towards a goal. You could argue then that one person's effectiveness increases the whole organisation's effectiveness 100x

Of course with bad managers it can easily go the same amount in the other direction, but it seems that Bezos has extremely effectively leveraged his abilities in management and built a very successful company because of that.

Post reply on HN