Earlier quoted context omitted.
He as a human is worth exactly the same as the workers, of course. But that changes nothing about his right to the wealth he created. The others could create their own wealth, Bezos wasn't in a privileged position when he started. If his money gives him political power, the solution is to fix the political system, not steal his money.
> But that changes nothing about his right to the wealth he created. I'm not talking about his worth as a human being, but exactly about his contribution to the wealth he now owns. His individual contribution to that wealth is not 188 billion times greater than that of any of his employees. It's just that the entire economic and political system as it exists today allows him to extract much more wealth from the enter…
It's all in the realm of "numbers to big for our primate brains to comprehend" anyway, but Amazon as a whole only pulls in as much _revenue_ as 13 million warehouse workers, 14 thousand times less than you're implying.
Beyond that, Amazon has over a million employees. Using a simplistic model of their contributions that Bezos is irreplaceable and each worker is fungible, you'd get Shapley values for the whole organization along the lines of Bezos getting half and the workers splitting the rest. In terms of profits before wages the workers are getting far more than half, and even in terms of revenue before expenses they're only getting a few times less than half. As a crude ballpark, compensation doesn't seem to be disproportionate.
Valid counter-arguments include Shapley values not being an appropriate way to allocate payment (which necessitates choosing which one (or more) of their payout properties you'd like violated, e.g. symmetry among equivalent workers or that payment should depend on value added), my model being so simplistic that it can't possibly be right even to an order of magnitude, declaring that even a factor of 2 is actually important in examining Bezos's income, etc. Appealing to a gut reaction based on numbers that are "obviously" too big is misleading at best.