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

Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 560 posts

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#471

Post by arcticbull »

gnusci wrote: post #456
jimnotgym wrote: post #419

Bezos can keep his donations, I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK. It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers. This article for instance shows homeless Amazon warehouse workers living in…

Maybe they are also contributing to the budget for: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/uks-mass-surveillance-regi... So it is a political trade-off, but it looks horrible and unacceptable to us.

Like it or not these things are done at the will of the people of the country; they could vote to change it, or vote in people who would change it but they won't. It's horrible and unacceptable to you, and to me, but not to your (technically, our, but I can't vote in the UK due to residency requirements) fellow countrymen.

Humans fear devastating but statistically unlikely things disproportionately to their chance of happening, and will do basically anything to avoid them. Terrorism is such an example, and surveillance is a consequence.

Thing is, if the people of the UK decide it's an unacceptable tradeoff they will vote to change it, and it will change. Just look at, lord have mercy, Brexit. It's in everyone's hands. That's not true of a billionaire's discretionary fund.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#473

Post by r00fus »

manigandham wrote: post #467
Jedd wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation. Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, let alone acting contra to the spirit of the law, then it's okay' defence. Your misdirection is correct - Jeff Bezos is not responsible for UK legislation - however how Jeff Bezos instructs his vendors and employees to act is very much his responsibility…

Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity. If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.

You don't think that negotiation and outright bribery (oh I'm sorry in the civilized West we call it lobbying) don't drive either the laws or the uneven enforcement of them?

Amazon is so big that they can jurisdiction shop or even just shop for legislators/civil servants to help fashion the regulatory environment they prefer.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#474

Post by manigandham »

r00fus wrote: post #473
manigandham wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity. If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.

You don't think that negotiation and outright bribery (oh I'm sorry in the civilized West we call it lobbying) don't drive either the laws or the uneven enforcement of them? Amazon is so big that they can jurisdiction shop or even just shop for legislators/civil servants to help fashion the regulatory environment they prefer.

Bribery is already illegal so what's your point with that?

Everything you're saying falls under "change and improve your government" if you want to see something different. If they fail to act in the public interest then vote in someone else, or run for office and show them how it's done.

It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And it's far more realistic than posting some comments and wondering why companies don't magically just donate their money away.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#476

Post by Nasrudith »

refurb wrote: post #452
capdeck wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like this was cheaper than upping the salaries of warehouse workers to get them off food stamps and provide healthcare. For Bezos this is just another calculation, nothing more.

I don’t get the concern around people using govt assistance when they have a low paying job. Would it have been better if those jobs were never created and those same people were on full welfare payments?

There is a flawed assumption -that the jobs were created by it in the first place. Jobs exist from demand and the best way to do them. While labor cost influences the approach the demand creates the job. Essentially it is revenue spent on what would have been done anyway to help get the already well off for no lasting benefit. Worse it incentives lower paid jobs by passing off some of their payroll.

If jobs are being made solely through and for subsidies they are better off doing it directly usually.

If they automate more things from the rules change? Mission accomplished - we have more productive work, more private investment in research and development, and technology marches forward and people can do more productive things with their time.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#477

Post by gaahrdner »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #317
gaahrdner wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addiction is absolutely a major cause of homelessness.

No. Addiction is rooted in the same intractable personal problems that lead to homelessness. People on the street are often using street drugs in place of prescription medication, sometimes by preference because, for example, they have a psych diagnosis and street drugs have preferable side effects to the medication they are supposed to be on. I knew a bipolar man somewhat well who was homeless. He smoked marijuana i…

I didn't say addiction is the problem, I said it was a major cause of homelessness, so I don't really understand the downvotes.

The National Coalition on Homelessness seems to agree, citing "A 2008 survey by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities for their top three causes of homelessness. Substance abuse was the single largest cause of homelessness for single adults (reported by 68% of cities). Substance abuse was also mentioned by 12% of cities as one of the top three causes of homelessness for families. According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless."

The American Public Health Association as well states, "On an individual level, persons who have a problem with alcohol and/or other drugs, and who are in marginal economic circumstances, are at especially high risk for homelessness."[1]

The road to addiction is complex, and yes mental health treatment should absolutely be better in the United States, but to claim that addiction is not a risk factor to homelessness is disingenuous.

[0] http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf [1] https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-pol...

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#478

Post by icelancer »

staticautomatic wrote: post #449
icelancer wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reverse is true as well. It would apparently kill people to admit that giving two billion dollars to something like this is an act of good faith because their judgment is so clouded by hate.

Whether or not it was done in good faith is irrelevant because it does not and cannot compensate for the harm Amazon/Bezos has caused.

Right, Amazon is purely net negative. Billions of dollars of wealth, the vast majority created on the backs of laborers via exploitation the world 'round.

I get the shtick. I hear it enough. It's not true, but it's a good story. Plays well on social media. The world is almost certainly better off with Amazon existing than without, even if they do some heinous stuff.

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#479

Post by justbuchanan »

arcticbull wrote: post #472

As much as I wish it would pass - and know it won't - Sanders' plan of charging back to employers the cost of social assistance incurred by employees who are paid below the cost of living is a clean and elegant solution to this.

I'm curious why you see Sanders' plan as a "clean and elegant" solution to this problem. It is a solution, but it seems likely to introduce some bad incentives at hiring time. For example, if a high school student and a single mother apply for the same job, which one should Amazon hire? Right now, both cost Amazon the same, but under the Sanders plan, hiring the single mother would likely cost a lot more due to the chargeback.

This writeup has some more discussion on the likely negatives of the plan: https://www.cbpp.org/poverty-and-inequality/sanders-khanna-b....

Re: Amazon's Bezos Launches $2B Fund to Help the Homeless

#480

Post by ZainRiz »

InitialLastName wrote: post #415
ZainRiz wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link didn't say anything about why the homeless population went up, other than "rents went up". It doesn't explain what stops people from looking for jobs in other, cheaper places, which is something I'm struggling to understand

> It doesn't explain what stops people from looking for jobs in other, cheaper places, which is something I'm struggling to understan What's hard to understand? Moving anywhere for a new job is expensive, and most people (even those with well-above-median incomes) have no savings. Most jobs don't include relocation, and the first paycheck doesn't come for ~4 weeks after starting. That means that moving as one person…

Maybe there's a difference of perspective here. My parents are both one of many, many siblings who were all born in Pakistan.

Their opportunities in Pakistan were pretty poor, so most of those siblings chose to emigrate and leave. Now most of those siblings are spread out around the US and Canada. My family moved to the US from Pakistan after his employer in Pakistan was unable to pay it's employees for months and we started from scratch here. This isn't just a new city, but a whole new country and culture.

All those siblings had to struggle like crazy to establish themselves, but it wasn't impossible.

Clearly there's a different perspective that others like yourself are seeing which I haven't understood.

Post reply on HN