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

491–500 of 560 posts

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

#491

Post by cjwilliams »

ithilglin909 wrote: post #158

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…

My experience in Seattle matches yours, but I think its because other types of homeless people are generally less proud/open about their situation. I think also, for better or worse, most people in Seattle are referring to this most obvious segment of the homeless population when they talk about the crisis. Despite this, its still hard for me to overlook that almost all of the homeless people I've spoken with/met are either- struggling with serious mental health issues/drug problems, or 'urban survivalist' types who say they are on street by choice (It could also be that once your homeless its better to decide that its a choice).

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

#492

Post by projektir »

natalyarostova wrote: post #437
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…

If you want to optimize systems, you should expect people to operate with self-interest with respect to the law. Attributing moral blame for self-interested parties not donating money to be within the spirit of the law is unreasonable.

Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...

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

#493

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

ithilglin909 wrote: post #158

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…

>but I’d challenge anyone who thinks homelessness in Seattle isn’t primarily an addiction and mental illness problem

Ya, there's a fraction of homelessness that's caused by that but even if it was 100% caused by that, which it's not, it is still a big problem that needs to be solved. If only not to have people living in the street. It doesn't help when a big company is not paying its fair share of the tax base and adding to the problem by attracting workers and paying them a wage that doesn't allow them to afford to live where they work or squeezing out the lower level workers out of their homes because the cost of living skyrockets.

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

#494

Post by projektir »

ryandrake wrote: post #363
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

speaking from experience, even a short gap during which you do not have an official address can create tremendous hurtles to getting housing, insurance, and employment.

There seem to be a lot of things like that in the USA, where if it happens even once or briefly, it screws up your life long term. Homelessness, poverty, seeking mental health help, arrest, prison, bankruptcy, a medical emergency. Every application form with a checkbox that says “Have you ever...” perpetuates this “gotcha” long-term punishment. Why does society insist on setting these traps for people?

Because everyone just cares about covering their ass and washing their hands. See all the comments above in the venue of "well, they're following the law, what else do you expect them to do?":

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

#495

Post by solveit »

projektir wrote: post #492
natalyarostova wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to optimize systems, you should expect people to operate with self-interest with respect to the law. Attributing moral blame for self-interested parties not donating money to be within the spirit of the law is unreasonable.

Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...

You're talking past each other. Moral blame isn't wrong, just not very useful.

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

#496

Post by toasterlovin »

mywittyname wrote: post #289
toasterlovin wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to be fairly opposed to the do-nothing stance taken by West Coast cities with regard to homeless camping, but I don't think it has anything to do with a vote buying conspiracy. There are much simpler explanations.

> There are much simpler explanations. FYGMism.

Yeah, or just that it's actually really difficult to take care of people who don't want to operate inside of any sort of reasonable framework.

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

#497

Post by TheCoelacanth »

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.

I don't have complete control over every government in the world. It is perfectly reasonable for me to criticize the way that companies act, even if it is incentivized by a government. People do not have to be mindless money maximizers. They have a choice in how they act and they are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incentives the government creates.

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

#498

Post by wmeredith »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #223
asdfman123 wrote: post #207

Earlier 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.

He’s not giving it away. He’s spending it on power, prestige, and legacy.

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

#499

Post by ingsoc79 »

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #434
artursapek wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pay the tax they are legally obligated to. You can't expect any business to pay a penny more than that. It's on the lawmakers to remove the loopholes (which they and their friends probably exploit as well, so good luck with that...)

Yes, but they fought the headcount tax in Seattle, and they're actively seeking a low-tax jurisdiction for HQ2.

The head tax was a poorly thought out law that would have inflicted a lot of collateral damage on Seattle-based businesses without trillion dollar market caps. It was broadly unpopular here for that and a number of reasons, in spite of widespread controversy about Amazon's effect on Seattle.

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

#500

Post by ctchocula »

seltzered_ wrote: post #266
forapurpose wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bezos also didn't support the Seattle income tax, although as far as I know he didn't spend money to oppose it. He did; Amazon was among the primary opposition (if we're talking about the same tax): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/technology/seattle-tax-am...

The nytimes article you linked is about the 2018 head tax. There were earlier initiatives: - 2017 - Seattle approved an income tax for high incomes, but was removed six months later after a court dispute - https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2017/december/seattle-inc... - earlier years - there have been Washington state income taxes proposed over the years, which have been usually shut down. googling shows the last mi…

Thank you for this video. The anecdotes about Obama and the German finance minister are excellent!
Post reply on HN