Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 259 posts

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#161

Post by Fnoord »

bumby wrote: post #126
avalys wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon has 950,000 of those warehouse workers. If you completely zeroed out Jassey’s stock $212 million stock award and instead distributed it among those workers, their hourly rate would change from $15 / hour to $15.01 per hour.

You're off by an order of magnitude, but the point still stands. Assuming 2k hours a year, the pay would raise by about $0.11/hr per warehouse employee or about $223 per year per employee.

$223 is significant for a minimum wage worker. Whereas these millions are a bucket in the ocean for the CEO. I see it as nothing less than narcissistic supply for the CEO.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#163

Post by RONROC »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #45
boeingUH60 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is who gets to define what is "fair"? I have similar qualms about an athlete who nets $46 million per year [1] for shooting balls into a basket. But, then, who am I to decide his "fair" pay? His club obviously thinks he's worth that… 1 - https://hoopshype.com/player/stephen-curry/salary/

Probably the crab at the bottom of the bucket? Limits on compensation are ineffective at achieving their goals under the best of circumstances, and the inevitable "unintended" consequences of further government manipulation in the market place would likely have negative effects.

Crab from the bottom of the bucket here: that's a lot of syllables for ???

Did I say the feds should set the limit? Why can't a respectable board set respectable limits? Cause they don't give a fuck about anything except the stock price EVEN if it means that others suffer in their wake.

That's why. That's the side you're on. Miss me with that libertarian Thiel bullshit.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#164

Post by mike00632 »

cato_the_elder wrote: post #147
joecot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is most certainly targeted towards AWS being used by ICE. And not just in a generic way of them hosting ICE servers, but with ICE using Amazon Rekognition to identify undocumented immigrants (and allegedly AWS had meetings with ICE to convince them to use the service). The human rights violations come up when you talk about kids being separated from their families and then straight up lost, and the various other…

> undocumented immigrants "Undocumented" is mostly just a euphemism for illegal. Amazon does a significant amount of shady things, selling servers to ICE isn't one of them. Open borders are neither feasible nor popular.

It's the other way around. "Illegal" is the inaccurate slur to refer to an undocumented person. Nobody can be illegal.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#165

Post by RONROC »

OminousWeapons wrote: post #61
RONROC wrote: post #12

[flagged]

> We need hard limits on executive pay because if you adjust every other employees salary at a truly fair rate, Jassy should be lucky to make 10 million a year. This makes no sense. Why should executive salary be tied or compared to the salary of any other employee role? Should my salary as a dev be a function of what a janitor makes? Should my Manager's salary be tied to my salary? I'm not sure where this idea origi…

>Should my salary as a dev be a function of what a janitor makes?

Should definitely not be more than FIVE times what he makes. Because you're not 5x smarter, efficient, or important as FIVE (5) janitors. Period.

And if you think you are and you're using the "free market" as a factor, well then I'm sure you think BTC should of ever been worth 60k or that Tesla should be worth $900 a share.

It's incredible that people plant their morality within the confines of a "definitely rational market that's definitely not experiencing a bubble".

You're entitled to your opinion, and by all means share it—but in my earnest (peasant, non-leet) opinion, I think I can draw a straighter, truer, more direct corollary from a persons idea of what fair is (no matter how opaque) than I can from whatever bullshit he types in as a reply.

Agree to definitely disagree. No apologies.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#166

Post by mike00632 »

sleepymoose wrote: post #78
joecot wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just double-checked with my peers and it turns out it's possible to protest two different things at once, and that petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done.

>petitioning at multiple sources of the problem is often more effective at getting things done Could you provide any sources for this? As it stands, I've seen zero tangible results regarding Amazon's ongoing unchecked growth, the prevailing lack of workplace standards in their warehouses or for delivery drivers, monopolistic practices, or any general "ethical" standing of the company. Same goes for the US Government.…

If you're looking for an example of companies forgoing profits to have an impact on unethical government policies then consider the death penalty. Many executions have been delayed or called off because companies refuse to sell the state drugs if they intend to kill people with them. Also, medical workers refuse to kill which has successfully foiled executions. The philosophy of "I'll be unethical because if I don't them someone else will" is flawed.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#167

Post by tetris11 »

csallen wrote: post #47
tetris11 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they can privately buy the regulators who can then make them even richer. If you place that much influence in the hands of anyone, it will be misused for personal gain.

1. If the regulators can behave so unscrupulously, making Jeff Bezos poorer won't solve that problem. 2. Wealth and influence are always used for personal gain. That's kind of the point, no? People are incentivized to work and earn money exactly so they can use it to make their lives better.

1. They could be more easily bribed by his competitors, or even by the government to do their jobs. It's less power to him.

2. If your goal in life is to maximize your own self interest without regards to how it impacts the society as a whole, then yes I agree.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#168

Post by RONROC »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #27
RONROC wrote: post #12

[flagged]

The problem is who gets to define what is "fair"? I have similar qualms about an athlete who nets $46 million per year [1] for shooting balls into a basket. But, then, who am I to decide his "fair" pay? His club obviously thinks he's worth that… 1 - https://hoopshype.com/player/stephen-curry/salary/

Nobody gets to decide.

I think we, collectively, as humans well define some vague idea as to what's acceptable and what's not, because no matter how smart you are, the realities that humans in motion provide are a couple more orders of magnitude more complex than your SPA repo. And it should be.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#169

Post by RONROC »

chrisseaton wrote: post #16
RONROC wrote: post #12

[flagged]

> should ... truly fair ... should be ... acceptable How do you determine these absolutes? Why is your 'should' and 'fair' set at whatever value you're using, and not whatever value someone else determined? The only 'fair' is what someone is willing to pay. If you aren't willing to pay someone 200m... then don't. Why do you care if someone else is willing and does?

You think a single individual (who didn't start the company I might add) should make 200 MILLION dollars.

We have a different value system.

Re: Amazon investors nuke ethics overhaul and say yes to $212M CEO pay

#170

Post by joecot »

willcipriano wrote: post #158
user3939382 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE is the problem, all the heinous shit US defense and intelligence does, whom Amazon is also in bed with, a-ok

ICE is unpopular because they the lower the voting power of blue states via removing illegal immigrants and thus lowering their census numbers, so the US media that is almost entirely Democratic[0] isn't a fan. The FBI[1][2] and CIA[3] aren't targeted because they carry water for the democrats. It has nothing to do with human rights, just politics. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju... […

This might surprise you, but some of us care about other human beings whether or not they're citizens of the United States. My issues with ICE have nothing to do with census numbers and everything to do with them separating children from their families and literally losing them, then destroying the records of them doing so. Canada is just now digging up the bodies of indigenous children who died at re-education camps, and it'll be decades before we get an actual death toll of ICE's actions.
Post reply on HN