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

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

#101

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:20 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #3

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.…

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.

>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.

Have you counted the lives and communities it destroyed (e.g. closing local alternatives and smaller chains)? The environmental cost from such large scale delivery of every possible BS? The externalities (including accumulated power to single person who contracts for the military industrial complex and runs newspapers)?

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

#102

Post by KozmoNau7 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:21 PM UTC

danielmg wrote: post #100

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or learn another skill?

Not really something you can "just do", when you're living paycheck to paycheck and can barely even pay rent, even after moving to more affordable accommodation, while also keeping your ~15 year old car running, because it's your lifeline to even having a job in the first place.

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

#103

Post by pixelrevision » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:21 PM UTC

zekevermillion wrote: post #80

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 h…

Pay his workers better?

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

#104

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:22 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…

Companies pay enough to get the quality and quantity of employees that they need.

This is an assertion not presently supported by evidence. With any other resource they need, companies typically respect the law of supply and demand: when there's low supply or high demand (or both), they pay more to get the resource. But when -- and seemingly only when -- that resource is labor, paying a higher price is practically unthinkable. That's why we've seen decades now in the US with little or no (inflation-adjusted) wage growth, despite higher average productivity and periods of low unemployment (either of which ought, in a rational market, to produce higher wages).

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

#105

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:22 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #72

csydas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Amazon has "Amazon Lockers", which let me accept deliveries at a time convenient to me, with no human interaction.

So, just like a post office box?

Not to mention that the raise of companies like Amazon and the "on demand" mentality is the one that forces people to not have more regular hours "convenient to them".

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

#106

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:24 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…

>You can't expect companies to fight for greater good and sacrifice their interests for the overall good.

You can if the society and law demands that. E.g. throw them a few huge fines for using bad labor practices (e.g. workers not allowed to go to the toilet when they need to, firing pregnant women, other kinds of discrimination) and let's see what happens.

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

#107

Post by worldsayshi » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:24 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #99

philwelch wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy isn’t a zero-sum game.

If one closes their eyes to externalities (societal and environmental and political), then yes, it isn't.

If you take those things into account, I can imagine one single source of positive sums: ecological cost efficiency.

If we can produce as much or more wealth with less ecological footprint then we have positive sum.

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

#108

Post by coldtea » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

mdex wrote: post #93

bluecalm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I completely agree. One legal change that needs to happen to preserve the free market: company with a habit of employees using social assistance should not get tax breaks (or any other help) from the government. The taxpayer should not be subsidizing the paycheck of Amazon employees. The burden is on Amazon to pay their employees a competitive wage, it's their problem not mine. Otherwise they have no incentive to pay…

>I completely agree. One legal change that needs to happen to preserve the free market: company with a habit of employees using social assistance should not get tax breaks (or any other help) from the government.

No enterprise-size company should get any tax break, period. Only small companies or enterprises that can show they had a bad run (and e.g. might otherwise need to close).

Add to that a rule that if they then just go and take their offices/factories abroad (where they get a big tax break) they get hit with the equivalent savings in import tax is they want to sell in the domestic market.

Combine that with tiny or no tax for individuals (like it has been before the 20th century and is still in several places).

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

#109

Post by throw2016 » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:32 PM UTC

Wealth is created with labour and Amazon depends on it, Amazon and Bezos wont be where they are without the labour of millions of others. The policies of the last 30 years have left labour in a weak position compared to capital which has allowed people like Bezos to build wealth for themselves without proper equity to labour. This is not about 'taking' or redistribution but ensuring the proper share for labour in the first place for their part in the process.

Of course if you intention is to privilege capital over labour this is exactly the results intended but for the rest of society wages are static for 40 years and ultimately someone has to pay, either Bezos, Wallmart and others via equitable and fair wages or taxpayers and us via subsidies.

So as a tech worker for instance there is already a huge portion of your income going to asset inflation and supporting the renteers and the financial class, now you also have to subsidize poorly paid workers by billionaires like Bezos, the Walton family and others. You may get low prices but someone has to pay for the labour, housing, education and medicare and since lobbying works so well for the wealthy its you who is going to be stranded with the bill.

Again thanks to globalization, 'convenient' tax havens, lobbying and wealth friendly policies that privilege capital, and sell-out economists businesses and the wealthy can dodge taxes, access cheaper labour globally, put labour against each other and get policies for lower taxes. Labour simply does not have this level of mobility or 'choice' so contrary to conventional narratives there is 'coercion' since working is not a choice, and if there are not enough choices you have to accept whatever is available. If your grand plan is feudalism and a new class of serfs this is exactly how you would go about creating it.

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

#110

Post by lucideer » Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

ti_ranger wrote: post #88

lucideer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arguably justifiable Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy?

> Very curious about these justification arguments. How on earth is tax-avoidance defensible in a thread about philanthropy? One topic (tax avoidance) is by one entity (AMZN) who has obligations and responsibilities towards shareholders (including most employees), where the other is by a different entity (Jeff Bezos) using his own wealth (that resulted from AMZN). Jeff Bezos can't use AMZN assets as he sees fit, othe…

> Capitalism isn't there to fix broken democracy, democracy is supposed to limit capitalism

I completely agree in terms of how to practically go about fixing the problems, but we're not discussing that here.

You're right that broken democracy fails to limit capitalism; this allows people without moral limits to exploit, and make large gains from said exploitation. And you're right that fixing that system is what's needed. But lauding those who have exploited that absence of limits, for their apparent morals, is what's being discussed in this thread.