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

251–259 of 259 posts

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

#251

Post by blindmute »

yunohn wrote: post #250
blindmute wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an issue of data. Wealth inequality by itself doesn't do anything bad, if the bottom can still afford what they need. It's a matter of having a realistic mindset and sense of self determination. A poor person today in the west has it drastically better than any poor person ever in history; they have a better quality of life as a poor person, and they have mind-bogglingly high levels of income mobility, in a…

Look, this is really a pathetic line of argument. If you’re selling self-help books, sure go ahead. This discussion is about minimum wage, wealth gaps, and relative compensation of CEOs. You do realise that? If you think everything is perfect, feel free to ignore such threads. The status quo exists and doesn’t need your support. Saying that working class people can just work harder and get higher paying jobs, doesn’t…

Sorry, but no, I will comment my views as I please, whether they support the status quo or not. As this is a public forum, you'd do well to find a way to cope with differing views.

I was poor. I improved my situation. I didn't spend much time complaining about rich people on the internet, because that would have detracted from the time I taught myself marketable skills for 8 hours a day, every day, for 7 months, while delivering pizzas and living in a shithole with 3 other people. You're right though, complaining would have been much easier, but somehow I don't think I'd still be making a quarter mil if I had taken that route.

"Pathetic" to recommend people work hard and fix their life? That sentiment itself is what's pathetic. The world doesn't owe you shit.

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

#252

Post by yunohn »

blindmute wrote: post #251
yunohn wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, this is really a pathetic line of argument. If you’re selling self-help books, sure go ahead. This discussion is about minimum wage, wealth gaps, and relative compensation of CEOs. You do realise that? If you think everything is perfect, feel free to ignore such threads. The status quo exists and doesn’t need your support. Saying that working class people can just work harder and get higher paying jobs, doesn’t…

Sorry, but no, I will comment my views as I please, whether they support the status quo or not. As this is a public forum, you'd do well to find a way to cope with differing views. I was poor. I improved my situation. I didn't spend much time complaining about rich people on the internet, because that would have detracted from the time I taught myself marketable skills for 8 hours a day, every day, for 7 months, whil…

I don’t believe the working class is sitting on HN and complaining - it’s mainly people like us who spend exorbitant taxes on a system that doesn’t actually help anyone. It’s not clear to me if you understand this nuance.

Anyways, your repeated “I got mine, fuck you” mentality is very boring and toxic - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/201....

Good luck, happy that you solved poverty! I’ll stop engaging as this thread will lead nowhere.

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

#253

Post by bigfudge »

yowlingcat wrote: post #95
bigfudge wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason companies are given legal standing and privilege is because they serve a useful social function, in addition to being a legal nicety for investment. If companies don’t serve useful social purposes we can change the law to withdraw those privileges.

That's incorrect. They are given legal standing and privilege because they serve a useful /economic/ function (tax base). The social function is downstream from this, and it's also what creates friction to actually /change the law/ to withdraw those privileges -- you do it at the risk of hemorrhaging that tax base which funds the governing apparatus.

I think you have a narrower definition of ‘social’ function. I mean the things that are useful to society as a whole. Things we seem not helpful/useful/conducive to people leading best lives can be curtailed. Not everyone shares the view that “economic freedoms” are inalienable when they entail externalities.

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

#254

Post by bigfudge »

dvt wrote: post #104
bigfudge wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But fairness without morality is just a nonsense. It’s an equilibrium. fairness requires some moral perspective.

> fairness requires some moral perspective It does not; you might be thinking of "justice." Even animals have a primal sense of fairness without the moral baggage (e.g. every dog gets one treat, etc.).

I take you point in part (justice is the stronger version) but fairness as you describe only occurs in social animals which actually do have a more complex definition of fairness than simple equality. Chimp ‘morals’ would include the notion that high status individuals “deserve more” - which I think is simple moralising which goes beyond equality

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

#255

Post by bigfudge »

RONROC wrote: post #174
bigfudge wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We set the context in which these forms can operate though. We can decide that forms who pay >10m in comp to individuals are by definition not contributing to social well-being… they must be exploiting some assymetry, rent seeking etc. We don’t have to work out how and why in each case… just that in balance that is almost always the case and so we make that behaviour economically unviable through taxation.

Except that you rested your laurels on the last word: taxation. Taxation is not and will never be in a place that serves the commonwealth, rather it will always align with those closer to power. Have you not been paying attention?

In the US this may be true. It’s certainly not in Europe. 80%+ of tax take is spent on health and social benefits here which are broadly approved of by the population…

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

#256

Post by blindmute »

yunohn wrote: post #252
blindmute wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but no, I will comment my views as I please, whether they support the status quo or not. As this is a public forum, you'd do well to find a way to cope with differing views. I was poor. I improved my situation. I didn't spend much time complaining about rich people on the internet, because that would have detracted from the time I taught myself marketable skills for 8 hours a day, every day, for 7 months, whil…

I don’t believe the working class is sitting on HN and complaining - it’s mainly people like us who spend exorbitant taxes on a system that doesn’t actually help anyone. It’s not clear to me if you understand this nuance. Anyways, your repeated “I got mine, fuck you” mentality is very boring and toxic - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/201... . Good luck, happy that you solved poverty! I’ll st…

The working class is absolutely sitting on Twitter and complaining. It's sad that you view advice to improve yourself as a toxic "fuck you". Is your locus of control so far externalized?

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

#257

Post by dvt »

drewrv wrote: post #246
dvt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The market" is amoral Yeah, exactly. Fairness in the marketplace is purely a math problem, no morality involved.

I feel like you’re using the word “fair” in an econ 101 sense, not in the way most people use it. “The market reached equilibrium” with child labor and indentured servitude. Most people consider child labor unfair, so law/culture/customs changed how the market operates. Even within the narrow definition of “fairness” in economics you still have externalities. This can become really tricky and require ethical consider…

> Most people consider child labor unfair

No, they consider child labor, slavery, indentured servitude, etc. unjust. You could easily come up with a thought experiment where every child (prince or pauper) has to partake in forced labor. This would be fair, but it would still be unjust.

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

#258

Post by dvt »

bigfudge wrote: post #254
dvt wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fairness requires some moral perspective It does not; you might be thinking of "justice." Even animals have a primal sense of fairness without the moral baggage (e.g. every dog gets one treat, etc.).

I take you point in part (justice is the stronger version) but fairness as you describe only occurs in social animals which actually do have a more complex definition of fairness than simple equality. Chimp ‘morals’ would include the notion that high status individuals “deserve more” - which I think is simple moralising which goes beyond equality

> justice is the stronger version

I think we have a disagreement here. Justice and fairness, in my view, are two distinct categories. Fairness is not always just (e.g. separate but equal), and justice isn't always fair (e.g. affirmative action). There's occasional overlap, but the overlap is incidental, not contingent.

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

#259

Post by mike00632 »

scarface74 wrote: post #204
mike00632 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If someone breaks the law, aren’t they doing something illegal?

You wouldn't call someone "an illegal" because they sped on their way to work.
Post reply on HN