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

521–530 of 560 posts

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

#521

Post by emodendroket »

lostmsu wrote: post #507
emodendroket wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not controversial to say the sky is blue because you can turn up a couple people who say it is green. You've really never heard of people turning to drink or drugs because of, day, the death of a family member? You can't see why someone who sleeps rough might seek escape through psychoactive drugs?

People turn to drugs because they decide to. You might blame circumstances, but I will always blame people.

They are not literally forced to take drugs, but the idea of escaping reality is obviously more appealing if reality is unending misery.

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

#522

Post by tim333 »

Jedd wrote: post #435
yodsanklai wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I agree with you, but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.

> ... 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…

Jeff Bezos has a legal obligation to Amazon shareholders. He's not really allowed to donate their money to the UK government beyond what is required by UK law.

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

#523

Post by leetcrew »

emodendroket wrote: post #460
chillacy wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think taxes are a bit better because you're also agreeing to pay your own money (vs only taking other people's money only as the original commenter said). I had a different reading of "taking other people's money by force" as meaning specifically voting to tax a minority group more just because you can. This is based on the GP comment being "We should tax billionaires out of existence" as opposed to "taxes are immo…

That isn't taxing a "minority group." It's just progressive taxation, an idea almost everyone accepts to some extent. "Taxing billionaires out of existence" could be achieved simply by increasing marginal tax rates.

billionaires are literally a minority group. they certainly don't need protected status, but, whether or not it is "good" to take their money, they can't effectively oppose this just by voting.

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

#524

Post by TheCoelacanth »

manigandham wrote: post #517
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody has complete control over any government, anywhere in the world. Companies are also not citizens, they are abstract structures designed to deliver value to customers and make a profit in doing so. A corporation has no specific loyalty to the government beyond following the laws and paying the dues required for operating. Corporations are also not able to judge what the "ethical" amount to pay is, which is why…

This is an absolutely horrifying argument. You are basically getting rid of any notion of personal responsibility and saying that I cannot criticize anyone for doing anything that the government does not prevent.

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

#525

Post by fosco »

majormajor wrote: post #483
yodsanklai wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I agree with you, but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.

I feel like I can blame people who say "you can't blame [whoever]," though. What you aren't saying is "let's actually change things."

I would love to say "Let's actually change things" but can you provide a plan for that? what can we _really_ do about it?

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

#526

Post by mrlala »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #154

I don't believe these externalized 'throwing money at things' solves much. What he can do is find innovative solutions within is own organization for the wellbeing of his own staff. And given his power in the value chain, start to demand basic rights in the crap countries of the world where the crap he peddles is made. Steve Jobs had so much power that literally in one, single email, in one sentence, could have chang…

>right to go to the bathroom

This is hyperbolic bullshit though. Just because you have some workers that choose to basically not go to the bathroom frequently and work like crazy to get the highest ratings doesn't mean it's mandated that way or encouraged to any degree.

Are other workers 'competing' against people that do such things, thus incentivising them to do the same behavior? Sure. But sorry that has nothing to do with amazon- that's the workers. You can find this behavior anywhere in any sort of company.. people that come in earlier, work later.. yeah people around them might be encouraged to do so to keep up, but that doesn't mean it's anyone's fault but the population.

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

#527

Post by gnusci »

arcticbull wrote: post #471
gnusci wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly my point. I just was been sarcastic (sorry). We believe they will do the best for us. But all this things happen all the time under the table. What I meant is that we don't like this things happening but we wont probably do much to change it.

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

#528

Post by manigandham »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #524
manigandham wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has complete control over any government, anywhere in the world. Companies are also not citizens, they are abstract structures designed to deliver value to customers and make a profit in doing so. A corporation has no specific loyalty to the government beyond following the laws and paying the dues required for operating. Corporations are also not able to judge what the "ethical" amount to pay is, which is why…

This is an absolutely horrifying argument. You are basically getting rid of any notion of personal responsibility and saying that I cannot criticize anyone for doing anything that the government does not prevent.

Definitely not what I said. Your comment also doesn't seem to make much sense and I don't see what personal responsibility has to do with corporate taxes. You can also criticise all you want, that's never been the topic of discussion in this thread.

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

#529

Post by asdkhadsj »

xamuel wrote: post #455
asdkhadsj wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Though, I view it more as; if you're starving and I have 10 apples, should I give you an apple? Why shouldn't someone else? Should the surgeon really do the work for free when 100k to him means a lot; but 100k to Bezos is meaningfully less? By the same token, if there's someone in front of me who needs help and I can help them with 5 cents? 5 cents is nothing to me, I'd do it in a hea…

No-one eats money. Money is just how we notate that we owe each other stuff. The surgeon can operate on the patient but decides not to, because the patient is a stranger. Bezos says "Please help that patient". The surgeon says "I know you! You convinced a bunch of vendors to send physical products to me and my loved ones. Therefore, I'll help the patient if you insist." The above dialog is unfamiliar because it gets…

> Imagine I know how to fish. I go and teach one million people how to fish. I charge them $1 each, which they gladly pay because they consider the skill worth more than $1. Now I have $1M. I hoard it. Am I greedy? By no means! It's a paradox: you think I'm greedy because I'm hoarding that $1M, but actually I have the $1M because I provided so much value!

Okay so I think I'm getting where you're going with this.. though I feel like it's a separate argument. Honestly it's difficult, so I'm not trying to be dense or coy and argue your point lol.

If I understand you, your saying the $1M does not denote you owe something - and that I can totally agree. You provided value, you have $1M, it was fairly acquired and you don't need to contribute back to society.

However, I don't think it matters to me, honestly. In my personal view, my 5c example still holds true. If I can give someone 5c, I don't care that I earned the 5c - providing value to the population around me. I have enough money that giving 5c away is meaningless, it's a level that I can easily help someone at - not just easily, without question/hesitation even.

Which goes back to what I said earlier, it's all about relative excess. In the $1M example, you don't owe anyone anything - you provided a service, you're better off because of it. Yet, if $1/m is all they make, your level of income os miles above theirs. To the point that, you could spend $25 for a goal you deem helpful to society, and it would mean little to you, but a ton to other people.

So yes, you don't owe anyone anything. But that's why I called it a personal responsibility. I want to be kind, and 5c for me to help someone is a no brainer. I don't owe them, I want to help them. Bezos and other massively rich people might be missing that.

I'm not saying Bezos sell some houses/cars and donate. I'm not saying you should take a loan out and donate. I'm saying we all should want to help people with a an amount that is trivial to us. If you're poor, helping people with trivial money may be of no value (in USD), time is likely more valuable. If you're mega rich however, a trivial value can change lives.

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

#530

Post by manigandham »

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...

Why must there be anything else? If you're going to make this argument then you must have a compelling answer, specifically in the context of a corporation.
Post reply on HN