There used to be time when one was scorned if they donated stuff to needy out of compassion instead of what justice demanded, i.e. fair living wages. There was also time when one had to maintain a facade of normalcy but was encouraged donating to charity in secret so that nobody knew about it. There was also time when charity meant unconditional help to those who needed it most instead of a way to reshape world and its culture into one's own image while evading taxes.
The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
51–60 of 146 posts
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. And we do exactly that through taxation. A portion of Jeff Bezos' fortune is derived from Amazon's ability to increase it's profits by (legal, and arguably justifiable) tax avoidance. That's part of global business these days, but it's not unreasonable for people in regions where Amazon minimizes it's tax costs to say Bezos is doing something bad for them .
> arguably justifiable Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy?
How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy?
The defence is more about remaining competitive in a global market than anything to do with how the owners spend their fortunes.
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#53"Matt Kilcoyne, of the free market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute, disagrees. "Quite frankly Bezos's greatest act of philanthropy is Amazon itself," he argues. "Lower prices, more choice and competition have delivered billions for Bezos and billions worth for the hundreds of millions of customers he serves." " I do think feel strong about Bezos plans, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim Amazon is a public good.…
Way more people benefited from Amazon. It's cheaper. It set a new standard in delivery times and customer support. Its existence improved life of millions of people by significant margin. That old industry got killed is natural when progress happens.
Shortening the delivery times from 3 to 2 days incurs a >40% increase in fuel costs. You claim the slight convenience of having stuff on your doorstep on Wednesday rather than Thursday not only outweighs that massive inefficiency and all its externalities, but is in fact a "significant improvement of the lives of millions of people".
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#54I'm always suspicious of someone that has "philanthropist" at the beginning of their wikipedia page.
agreed. In my head, it's synonymous with "Did some very questionable things and then tried to buy his image back and put it on wikipedia"
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#55Lots of comments attacking Amazon for lowering wages but ignoring the fact that warehouse work in general is on borrowed time and going the way of horse and buggies (https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY)
At some point in the near future, these jobs won’t exist. Are the commentators suggesting they not be automated? Likewise long truck driver driving is going to eventually collapse.
Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just accelerate the drive to full automation.
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon also set new lows for how to pay and treat employees, and how little it is possible to care about selling counterfeit products.
I never understand why people say things like this. It's not even remotely true. For instance we can quantify the salary comment. A quick search for fulfillment center work showed salaries starting at $12-$14/hour. The median pay for retail work, by contrast, is $11.24 [1], which means 50% of workers earn less than that. It's not possible to similarly conveniently quantify concern about counterfeit, but if you think…
I base my impression of their working conditions on a friend of mine, who's worked both the warehouses and as a delivery driver. The managers are slave drivers, and if you're just a minute or two behind on a schedules delivery, you get dinged, a black mark on your employment record and a severe talking-down. Even if the delay is of no fault of your own (bad traffic, weather, etc.), it's seen as a personal failure on your part.
No level of pay can make up for being treated like shit.
Regarding the counterfeits, Amazon loves to say how they're dealing with the issue, but the examples just keep piling up. And of course their childish behavior around Chromecast and Youtube.
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#57Lots of comments attacking Amazon for lowering wages but ignoring the fact that warehouse work in general is on borrowed time and going the way of horse and buggies ( https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY ) At some point in the near future, these jobs won’t exist. Are the commentators suggesting they not be automated? Likewise long truck driver driving is going to eventually collapse. Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly h…
>Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just accelerate the drive to full automation.
No one is asking that Amazon pay a vastly higher salary to their low tier employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees and pay accordingly within a particular market.
The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full time employee, even if their position is likely to be automated in the future. That shouldn't be considered a luxury only available to the well-to-do. If the likelihood of automation is a valid rationale for lowering wages then just about everyone should be living on borrowed time and $12.00/hr.
And Amazon is pushing for full automation at maximum speed regardless, so employee wages are likely not a factor in that timeline.
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon also set new lows for how to pay and treat employees, and how little it is possible to care about selling counterfeit products.
Clearly they have been better than the alternatives for customers - otherwise, they would not be successful. Employees also have a choice - Amazon is not a monopoly.
The customer's don't see the horrible conditions behind the scenes, all they see are cheap products.
If you're a delivery driver, your job options are extremely limited. You can deliver fast food, or deliver for companies like Amazon. It's either that, or starve.
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps not a universally correct one, but most probably a sufficiently accurate one, given Amazon's continued revenue growth. This is similar to the chronological vs. algorithmic timeline debates in social media: it's annoying to many users, but the overall result must be positive, otherwise they probably wouldn't be doing it, in face of the backlash.
If the trends continue over a period of several years, that may prove to be true. Anecdotally, I am far from alone among my friends and family in perceiving that Amazon's quality, reliability and customer service have degraded sharply in recent years. It's not just the counterfeits issue. Their basic product organisation is terrible these days, and it's often difficult to figure out if I'm ordering the correct editio…
> Anecdotally, I am far from alone among my friends and family in perceiving that Amazon's quality, reliability and customer service have degraded sharply in recent years.
You can add me to that list. I've had an Amazon account since 1998, and I'm at a point where I use it only as a measure of a last resort.
Nevertheless, Amazon revenue from retail business [1] over the past few years is way up, suggesting that our position seems to be a minority one.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/672747/amazons-consolida...
Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
By what measure are Bezos' contributions a net negative?
Unless you believe that commerce is a goal in itself, and that building a successful business contributes positively to the world by default (I'm sure many people do believe this so just getting it out of the way), then you have to look at the outputs. For Amazon that's largely: - extremely poor pay and conditions for Amazon's workers - dominance driving smaller less-efficient enterprises out of business; this isn't…
I'm curious, did any company ever contributed overall to a society in your opinion?
"extremely poor pay and conditions for Amazon's workers" Where should Amazon magically create this money from? It can only come at the expense of customers.
"so typically Amazon is unlikely to be a net job-creator." That's a net positive. Less work, the same job done. Making more work is easy, just let people throw rocks from one pile to the other and back again.
"Tax = vital public and social services for citizens, so that's a big net negative." They may not contribute by not paying taxes, but 0 contribution is not negative contribution.