| ▲ | lkjdsklf 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
It's entirely relevant. The entire point is that the riches borne of the success of amazon could have been shared more equally while not actually making a different in Bezos' or his families life. The only difference would have been that his score on the billionaire leader board would have been slightly lower. That fact is not only relevant, it's a central pillar of the point. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rayiner 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The entire point is that the riches borne of the success of amazon could have been shared more equally while not actually making a different in Bezos' or his families life. Why does that matter? What is the universal principle that’s at play here? Does this principle apply to everyone? Does it apply to you? People in my dad’s village in Bangladesh survive on $5/day. Under your principle, why do you get to spend 1,000x that on a vacation? Can you also explain your math? You said above that Amazon could pay its workers 10x as much as they do now. Bezos’s share of Amazon’s net profit last year was about $6.9 billion. Amazon has 1.1 million delivery drivers and warehouse workers. So if Bezos’s share was nothing, those workers could earn about $6,300 more. That’s like 10-15% more, not 10 times more as you incorrectly said. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||