The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade? • Hacker News Board

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#71

Post by lucideer » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:09 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #67

lucideer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious, did any company ever contributed overall to a society in your opinion? Yes. The issues I'm raising are largely to do with some extremely large companies. > Where should Amazon magically create this money from? It can only come at the expense of customers. Are you saying that no company pays their employees enough? Or that employees in general shouldn't be paid a living wage? Or even that Amazon, a comp…

> Are you saying that no company pays their employees enough? Companies pay enough to get the quality and quantity of employees that they need. Those who are coming up short on either side are the companies who are (presumably) not paying their employees enough. > Or that employees in general shouldn't be paid a living wage? In general, my answer is "null" here, as the definition of living wage is continually (and it…

> the definition of living wage is continually (and it seems to me, intentionally) slippery/non-specific

That's a funny excuse not to engage with the point. Of course it's variable: different regions have different costs of living, and different social supports. Some countries or areas do have a specifically defined value for a living wage, my own definition for the purpose of this discussion is quite obviously: "enough money to meet your basic needs". This is distinct from subsistence, which is what a lot of employees do.

Plenty of people have defined and even calculated living wage, MIT even have a nice online one. Neither is necessary to engage with a discussion about the general idea of worker subsistence.

> Amazon does not hurt customers overall. I suspect you either meant to say employees, or perhaps have introduced a new argument that I'm not following.

You said "at the expense of customers", sorry the wording in my reply was slightly different.

> A profitable company can afford to pay its employees for longer, but has no obligation (legally or ethically) to pay them more, IMO.

As in this context we've defined more as barely enough to meet their basic needs, I'll have to disagree with you on the ethical obligation.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#72

Post by mrob » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:09 PM UTC

csydas wrote: post #13

bluecalm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure I'd allow the delivery times and customer support to be attributed as a real thing to Amazon. Both were meant as audience capturing tactics and were basically unattainable by most all other competitors due to costs -- Amazon only avoided it riding on a large wave of money and eating costs for years until it was the only game in town. Now you can't have a thread about Amazon without constant complaints ab…

> I'm not sure I'd allow the delivery times and customer support to be attributed as a real thing to Amazon.

Amazon has "Amazon Lockers", which let me accept deliveries at a time convenient to me, with no human interaction. This is a real improvement over previous methods, and AFAIK no other retailer in my country has anything similar.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#73

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:15 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #65

itsmenotyou wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That people benefited from internet shopping and delivery is not a defense of a company treating it's workers badly or evading paying taxes. Let's not pretend amazon is the only company that might have delivered those efficiencies, they were just the most successful, the most ruthless.

You can't expect companies to fight for greater good and sacrifice their interests for the overall good. In fact it's against the law for them to do that. Amazon hires a lot of people and in many countries pay reasonably well. With taxes it does what the law allows. If you want to change those things start with changing the law, ending policies hurting the working class (limiting low skill migration would be the firs…

Oh no, the foxes eat us, that is their job...

"Why dont we get rid of the foxes, we have the power to do that"

No, no, that seems like a silly idea, status quo is the best.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#74

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:17 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #71

sokoloff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that no company pays their employees enough? Companies pay enough to get the quality and quantity of employees that they need. Those who are coming up short on either side are the companies who are (presumably) not paying their employees enough. > Or that employees in general shouldn't be paid a living wage? In general, my answer is "null" here, as the definition of living wage is continually (and it…

> the definition of living wage is continually (and it seems to me, intentionally) slippery/non-specific That's a funny excuse not to engage with the point. Of course it's variable: different regions have different costs of living, and different social supports. Some countries or areas do have a specifically defined value for a living wage, my own definition for the purpose of this discussion is quite obviously: "eno…

> You said "at the expense of customers", sorry the wording in my reply was slightly different.

I directly copied text from your post and replied to it. I even tried to make a good faith charitable interpretation of it.

Are you accusing me of misquoting your own words to some end?

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#75

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:18 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #69

From the Carnegie quote: > "The man of wealth thus becoming the sole agent and trustee for his poorer brethren," he wrote, "bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer - doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves." How does wisdom about running a business translate into wisdom how other people should live their life?

Money is power. Power means I'm right.

Pretty much anyone with money and power ever.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#76

Post by mac01021 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:19 PM UTC

> "If you want to wade into public policy, you have a moral responsibility not to put a Band-Aid on cancer," he says, adding that Mr Bezos could work to influence policy instead.

Noone interviewed for the article talks about what policies Bezos might lobby for in order to make a real difference...

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#77

Post by justtopost » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

Radim wrote: post #68

fastball wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "let society take care of it", who exactly do you mean?

It's a cowardly way of saying "I want that guy's money, but am too weak to take it myself". The fundamental problem with such redistribution schemes is: Who gets to decide who's weak and who's the villain? Certainly each individual knows for themselves; typically a variation on "I'm weak; give me". But coming up with stable, fair valuations for social contribution is a hard problem. For example, we already know that…

And you just explained why, while it sounds great to me otherwise, I can never get behind socialism. The evils of capitolism are essentially still present, but now controlled by committee.

I once dreampt the answer was a new meta-currency, where there is subjective emotional value traded against a objective value currency. The interactions you had during the day gave value to others life and you shared in that, and you gave back to those that brightened yours. My dream imagined people being their best, for both selfish and social reasons. But upon waking and reflection, I found a Black Mirror-esque dance of everyone emotionally blackmailing each other, and facade-laden interaction approaching desperation.

I don't know the answer, but careful application seems key. The world is made of edge cases.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#78

Post by MrEfficiency » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

DEADBEEFC0FFEE wrote: post #2

"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.…

Amazon has helped me 'invent' things. I cannot deny that getting components in 2 days for mere dollars has been very useful.

This cascades as I then provide value for people that buy my later inventions.

Sure I can use digikey, but it takes 7-9 days to get parts for a reasonable price.

While Amazon has gotten worse in the last few years, they still have crushed the established standards for shipping.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#79

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:25 PM UTC

Radim wrote: post #68

fastball wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "let society take care of it", who exactly do you mean?

It's a cowardly way of saying "I want that guy's money, but am too weak to take it myself". The fundamental problem with such redistribution schemes is: Who gets to decide who's weak and who's the villain? Certainly each individual knows for themselves; typically a variation on "I'm weak; give me". But coming up with stable, fair valuations for social contribution is a hard problem. For example, we already know that…

The guy with your head in the guillotine.

Mass income inequality will eventually produce violent solutions. A society where the bottom portion has enough that they are not willing to risk it all is a stable solution.

Re: The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade?

#80

Post by zekevermillion » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 12:26 PM UTC

Amazon shares have a lot of value, and Bezos is sitting on a pile of them. What should Bezos do with that currency -- hoard it? spend it?

This supermoney represents Bezos' capacity to incentivize his fellow humans to act in concert toward a goal that he can influence. If he hoards it, then it does nothing for society. Bezos doesn't need it for his personal enjoyment either. After he leases a couple jets, buys a few homes, and pays for his staff, I doubt that costs more than tens of millions per year. Not billions.

If he spends it, then he needs to find undertakings that can efficiently absorb billions of dollars in value and still advance a meaningful goal. Space exploration is one of those undertakings. Bezos said he has been spending I think a billion per year on space travel / rocket engineering. There are few other areas that could so easily use this kind of capital. I would think that homelessness is another difficult problem that can absorb large amounts of value.

Maybe this arrangement of accumulation and philanthropy is sub-optimal, and we should instead tax capital to allocate the surplus democratically rather than allow the person who accumulated it to make the decision. Well, we already do that to some degree, with mixed results. Perhaps a little of both is called for.

In any event, I for one am pleased to see this money going to address homelessness. I don't care who is making the endowment, as long as the funds are used well. This is a serious, difficult problem, and this charity seems meaningful to me, not a purchased indulgence like sponsoring a new museum wing for example.