It's great to see Bezos invest in a way that is quite different than other folks in tech's Big Philanthropy approach. Many are piling their money into trusts to avoid taxes now, but don't deploy their philanthropic dollars quickly. Even with increasing wealth and charity dollars in cities like San Francisco, local charities have had a hard time making ends meet. International philanthropy and trusts are not bad in and of themselves, but need to support local charities as well which seems to be the goal. Pretty awesome.
Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
371–380 of 560 posts
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Living in a car is homeless.
What is it about the car, that it doesn't actually have living accomodation or that it is not a house and has no address? For example, does living in an RV mean you are homeless?
Cars, underpasses, camping tents, and cardboard boxes are not properly "homes".
Apartments, houses, yurts, and RVs are "homes".
Homes need to (1) provide adequate shelter, (2) have sufficient space, and (3) have access to water and waste facilities.
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel people like Jeff Bezos, who already have all the money in the world, are more interested in winning/power and money is only a way of keeping score. Bezos is probably interested in growing Amazon into the biggest business in the world, and part of that strategy is cutting costs to the bone. What I'm trying to say is he's looking for a way to maximize Amazon's growth rate, not necessarily pinch pennies (pinch bi…
That is contradictory. If money is how he keeps score than he isn't going to give any way.
When the score is 400-3 you can sit out a couple of plays.
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#374Serious albeit philosophical question: Why not more? Why not $160B?
Why not both fund this and pay Amazon employees more?
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#375What'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.
Asking who else has donated anything close to this is a bit silly considering most people aren't billionaires. It might be more fair to ask how many people have donated 1.2% of their net worth to charity, and I think the answer will surprise you in that a lot of people have. A second question is whether or not this makes up for how Bezos has gotten his money and the potential damages on society that has. If I burn do…
I don't think using a percentage as reference is useful in this case. There are a variety of reasons why giving 2 billion (even if it's 1.2%) is much different then giving a few hundred or thousand dollars. You have to be much more concerned about the overhead, how the money is being spent, who is managing it, etc... because even a 1% waste results in a loss of 200 million dollars.
Secondly, I don't know if anyone has really quantified how much damage or potential damage Bezos has done in his lifetime, and I would be surprised if it was actually net negative. What honest to god damage has he done? Some people have rough working conditions and are underpaid ( these people are not forced to work at Amazon). I agree that is bad and think they should be paid more and treated better. What did the world benefit though? Everyone gets generally good cheap stuff reliably within a few days to their doorstep, saving millions in man hours yearly.
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#376Reminds me of how Pablo Escobar gave money to the poor in Medellín. Not implying Bezos is a narcoterrorist but the goals seem similar to me.
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is really frustrating when a man makes that much and does so little. Like, I don't think/know if it should be law. I'm not talking about being Robinhood with our taxes or whatever. I don't know any of that. All I know is it's frustrating . Look at all the good Gates is working towards. There's just so much room for people with that much wealth to strive for. Honestly.. I think what's most frustrating is I can't ev…
FWIW, it used to be law. Tax rate on the top-1% of earners in the US was much, much, MUCH higher until the recent four or so decades.
Source?
Genuinely curious.
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#378Reminds me of how Pablo Escobar gave money to the poor in Medellín. Not implying Bezos is a narcoterrorist but the goals seem similar to me.
Believe in better.
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#379Serious albeit philosophical question: Why not more? Why not $160B?
Your question reminds me of the Australian moral philosopher (and one of the founders of the "Effective Altruism" movement) Peter Singer. I have an inkling that you know him.
He talks about (and makes people squirm) "how much should one give?":
"[...] In particular, he expands upon some of the arguments made in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", in which he posits that citizens of rich nations are morally obligated to give at least some of their disposable income to charities that help the global poor. He supports this using the drowning child analogy, which states that most people would rescue a drowning child from a pond, even if it meant that their expensive clothes were ruined, so we clearly value a human life more than the value of our material possessions. As a result, we should take a significant portion of the money that we spend on our possessions and instead donate it to charity."
People have punched some solid holes through his argument, I can't link to them all, as I'm typing on the phone. But regardless, it's impossible to ignore Singer's arguments.
Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless
#380Utilitarian question: Can he do more net good spending $2 billion to help the homeless, or spending an equivalent amount to double the take-home pay of warehouse employees and/or convert the "money towards medical insurance" plan into a company-supplied medical plan? (Follow-up question is "Given he doesn't have plurality control of the stock votes, does he have the authority to do so in a vacuum without getting ejec…
Amazon has (conservatively) over 500,000 employees. This $2B would cover a pre-tax salary increase of $4000 for one year, which wouldn't come close to doubling take-home pay.