161–170 of 560 posts
What's up with the critical comments in here? How many of the judgemental and jaded posters here donated anything close to this to a charitable cause? Good deeds must be applauded, not shamed for not being better. Especially if the definition of "better" is made up randomly on the spot.
Call me cynical, but shouldn't this $2B go towards compensating his employees well enough to not have to use government welfare programs? [0] [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-takes-walmarts-spot-w...
While Bezos' wealth has skyrocketed in the last year, the portion of that wealth that actually came out of the Amazon ledgers was under $2 million in 2017. [1]
Since it is the responsibility of the company to compensate employees, at most Bezos' cut is taking $2 million out of the pie, which divided across the several hundred thousand Amazon employees would give each worker less than $20 per year. Not exactly life changing.
Regardless of whether or not Amazon should pay employees more, basing that argument on the CEO's capitol gains on long-standing investments is ridiculous.
[1] https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-O...
What's up with the critical comments in here? How many of the judgemental and jaded posters here donated anything close to this to a charitable cause? Good deeds must be applauded, not shamed for not being better. Especially if the definition of "better" is made up randomly on the spot.
No one's shaming him for not doing something better. They're shaming him for having a direct role in creating the problem this charity is supposed to resolve.
I dont't care if this is a PR stint to ward of recent criticism Bezos is getting from Bernie et al but if this fund goes and actually help and make a real life impact on the lives of homeless people, then I am fine and I will hold back my criticism of Amazon. I mean clearly I have not done enough to mitigate homelessness in this country who am I to question others motives trying to solve the same problem?
What's up with the critical comments in here? How many of the judgemental and jaded posters here donated anything close to this to a charitable cause? Good deeds must be applauded, not shamed for not being better. Especially if the definition of "better" is made up randomly on the spot.
> What's up with the critical comments in here? How many of the judgemental and jaded posters here donated anything close to this to a charitable cause? I mean it's much easier to donate to charitable causes when you have more than enough for yourself and your family so that's not an apples to apples comparison, but he's also donating less than 1.5% of his wealth. Have I donated that much? No but I think I'm close an…
So he should donate 99% on that cause and today? No tomorrow, no other worthy causes? Bezos, alone, cannot solve all the world's problems. He should be commended for his donation and willingness to help solve the problem. Haters gonna hate...they can't sleep well at night unless they do that.
This isn’t popular, but I’d challenge anyone who thinks homelessness in Seattle isn’t primarily an addiction and mental illness problem to go spend a few afternoons in areas with significant homeless populations (3rd Ave in Pioneer Square is a great place, if you need a suggestion). It’s not that affordable housing isn’t a problem in Seattle. I know people who couldn’t live on their own in Seattle anymore due to rent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t this “problem created by” anyone who is rich then?
Yes. We should tax billionaires out of existence. This level of wealth and power accumulation is as unseemly as it is dangerous to our democracy and economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one's shaming him for not doing something better. They're shaming him for having a direct role in creating the problem this charity is supposed to resolve.
How is Amazon creating more homeless people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as a Seattle resident, and despite my dislike for Bezos, this was a stupid tax - more connected to Seattle's dysfunctional politics than solving our bad homeless problem. Among other things, it was keyed to revenues not profits (specifically to target Amazon) but it ended up burning the likes of grocers who provide decent jobs but don't have a lot of margin even with large revenues. Good riddance to it and a…
As a Seattle resident, what do you think of the argument that Amazon greatly contributed to homelessness in Seattle? I read somewhere that Amazon's explosive growth raised the property values in Seattle, which in turn caused a surge in homelessness. Is that true?
I don't think the problem is REALLY Amazon's fault per se, since they are just paying people more than other companies in the area which I think most people would agree is a good thing.
I think the problem is more that we in the US treat housing as an investment which makes people more willing to pay higher prices and to borrow money to buy a house. When people see the housing prices increase then that further raises housing prices.
The issue is that housing prices, and subsequently rent, increasing is not a good thing for society. Even though the value of the house has changed, the house itself hasn't changed at all, and yet people now have less money to spend on other things. The only thing it really does is make banks and people who were already well off enough to buy a house wealthier.
Sadly I have no idea what we can do to solve this that isn't communist.