3138

I’m with Andy on this one, while it’s out of reach for many people, it’s not an uncommon story at all. If you’ve ever watched Gordon Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares, it’s darned near the default story. “We wanted to quit our jobs and try something new, so we sold everything and went into massive debt to buy a restaurant. We’re $500,000 in debt now.”

Which is probably a good example of some people that are determined to make a splash and others who are not, I would never have gone into that kind of debt unless I was selling $1 bills for $1.50. I invested essentially fun money in a small bourbon project and I sweated it as hard as any financial decision I’ve ever made. There’s probably a correlation to gambling addicts, I enjoy playing Craps when I go to a casino, but winning $300 feels about 1/5 as good as losing $100 feels bad.

3139

I absolutely do.

Just on the surface, the reason that everyone used Amazon is because they, as individuals, made the conscious choice that Amazon was offering them something of value. That’s the value judgement made by billions of people. Maybe you disagree, but the reality is that your opinion is just one dude, compared to billions of consumers… So it kind of doesn’t matter. It certainly isn’t more legitimate than theirs.

But even beyond that, there are all those other people around the globe who are employed by the industries and sell goods through the logistical chains enabled by Amazon. Or so the small sellers who sell goods on Amazon and could never have sold goods on their own because markets for their specialty goods didn’t exist in their local area.

You can construct an imagined scenario in your mind that the net good/bad comes out one way or the other, but that’s just baseless speculation. You have no actual metrics by which to make such a holistic judgement. You point out things that you see as bad, and act as though it is the entirety of the situation.

But what CAN be measured, is what accrual human beings have done, and how they have covered their opinions through commerce. And they judged Amazon to be hugely beneficial. It’s silly to pretend like you somehow know better. You can say that those people are all short sighted and didn’t understand the implications of their choice, and that may certainly be the case… But it’s just as much the case for every value judgement that YOU make. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring, or what might have been if things played out differently.

But what we do know, is that at assume point in time (and continuing, every day), billions and billions of humans are saying, “yeah, that’s pretty good.” That’s just as valid as any value judgement anyone here could make. It’s MORE valid, because it’s a choice made by so many.

3140

Restating my point that if not Bezos, someone else would’ve done it, but in a slightly condescending/insulting way is certainly an interesting debate strategy.

3141

You’re ignoring the Tragedy of the Commons.

3142

If a line cook screws up a meal and gets people sick, then he doesn’t have to pay those people’s medical bills. Maybe the line cook gets fired, but more likely they need to look at the whole process and figure out how tainted meat got into a burger. Firing one guy doesn’t really fix a problem like that, which is why the line cook probably isn’t fired as a result.

A company develops a successful new product, so they hire 100 new people to work on it. That’s 100 people who enjoy the positive consequences of the CEO’s decisionmaking. Another team member is promoted and starts managing the incoming employees. That’s an increased salary as a result of the CEO’s decisionmaking. The stock goes up, and now the employees’ shares are worth more. That’s higher wealth. I don’t understand how you think that the CEO’s decisions don’t have positive consequences on employees.

It’s not a hypothetical: It was called the Fire Phone, and Amazon took a $170 million loss on that failed product. But guess what? Everyone who worked on that project got paid for their time.

And I don’t know what you mean about “what if the shareholders demand savings?”. Your question makes no sense.

You don’t think that companies who make a successful product will continue to make that product?! I don’t think you understand how companies work.

Yep, layoffs definitely happen. But those employees got to keep all the money they were paid over the course of that project. The company loses money, but the employees don’t have to pay the financial cost of that loss. Just like any other job.

We’re talking about the role of CEOs in general, because CEOs do the same general thing that “obscenely wealthy” CEOs do. The scale is different, but the concept is the same.

3143

And if someone else had done it, then that person would have earned those profits, not Bezos.

Imagine saying that to any other employee:

“Hey, I just finished my shift. Can I have my paycheck?”
“No, you don’t deserve that money. If you hadn’t done that job, then someone else would have.”
“But I DID do the job!”
“Yeah but there’s nothing special about you. You’re not some special or unique snowflake. Anyone could have done that job.”
“But…I’m the one who ACTUALLY did it.”
“Yeah, but that’s what I’m saying: Anyone could have done it! You don’t deserve that money, because anyone else could have done that job too.”

3144

There is no reasonable basis for this claim. It presupposes that the universe is trundling along some fixed path, and that we are all just swappable cogs within that machine.

There’s no reason to think that’s the case. It’s just as easily the case that something else would have happened… You kind of implied this earlier, suggesting that someone smart might have made something better.

On some level your statement can be reduced to, “things happen, so whatever. People will do things.”

If someone like Bezos’ actions are truly so meaningless, and so irrelevant to the world, then who gives a crap about what happens to normal people? They’re even more swappable. Who gives a crap if you die, someone else will just do whatever it is that you were going to do, right?

It’s a totally nihilistic take on things.

Yes, the world would go on even if you removed any of us, even history’s titans. But that didn’t mean that everyone’s actions are equivalent.

And ultimately it’s totally pointless and empty as an argument. We don’t live in that parallel universe you are imagining. We live in the ACTUAL universe, where actual things happened. Actions and choices don’t lose importance because you imagine someone else could have possibly done them. Lots of people COULD have started Amazon… But they didn’t. Actions that only take place in your imagination don’t matter.

3145

If you’re advancing a hypothetical like only Bezos could have done this — and that is what you are doing — a response with another hypothetical is just fine. Why not?

Seriously, this cult of the Superman act is positively creepy.

3146

Plus wasn’t there just arguments being made about how instrumental Jobs was to Apple’s fortunes, and thus he deserved his disproportionate share of the wealth? “Sure, whatever, just make the date” doesn’t strike me as the biggest contribution.

3147

Well I’m not saying “only Bezos could have done this”, but I am saying that Bezos did do it. I don’t think that “someone else could have done the same thing” means that the person who did it doesn’t deserve the credit.

The contribution is in making the right decision at the right time. And it this case, it was a decision that increased employment and development efforts, opened up entirely new markets, and drove billions of dollars in revenue. The value of a painting is based on the choice of brush strokes, not how much effort it took to actually make them.

3148

When I drive my car, I know that it has a negative impact on the air quality in my area, but I do it anyway. The negative impact of that choice on my community does not go away just because I personally get some benefit. It doesn’t go away even if I get a ton of benefit. You and others seem to be locked into this mindset that “if someone makes a choice to do something, they’re obviously getting benefit from that choice, so all is well!” Which ignores any and all knock-on effects of that choice.

There is no quantifiable measure of social impact. Even your example is not quantifiable, because it’s just “X number of people do a thing,” without any conversion from “people doing a thing” to “net impact to society”. That’s the whole point of argumentation. I’m not saying what you’re saying isn’t valuable, I just think it’s wrongheaded to claim that I don’t have a quantifiable answer and then follow up with something equally unquantifiable.

You continue to contrive these examples of people reinvesting their wealth into their companies, creating more jobs and prosperity for all. Reagan would be proud of you. The reality is that wealth doesn’t trickle down like that - if anything, it’s been trickling up. If companies truly reinvested their wealth like that, there wouldn’t be the massive wealth centralization we’ve seen over the last half-a-century.

They did get paid for time worked. Because to not do that would be criminal. But then they lost their jobs. While everyone responsible for the decision got to keep cushy jobs.

Do you not understand how losing one’s job, usually without generous severance, is a negative consequence? Why do you continue to assume that I’m arguing that these people owe someone money, or that the only possible consequences are financially transactional? That is so far removed from my point that I’m wondering if I’m on a hidden camera show or something.

Company invests 50 million into developing a phone. Phone fails, company is out 50 million dollars. Shareholders say they want to recoup the 50 million so the share price doesn’t fall. Company fires 50 million dollars worth of employees. Money saved.

What I’m trying to get at and what you seem to be missing is that the concept is NOT the same because the scales are different. Some CEOs do take on increased personal risk, and they redistribute profits across the company, and they reinvest responsibly into the company. That’s fairly noble commerce, but those people aren’t fabulously wealthy to the point where they’d be affected by a proposed wealth tax. The CEOs who do have obscene amounts of wealth have essentially removed all of their own risk, replacing it with the risk of the people who work for them, and they are comfortably insulated from anything bad that could happen due to their wealth. To the point where losing their job isn’t even a negative consequence.

Like, do you understand there’s a difference between someone with 50k in wealth losing an engineering job and someone with billions in wealth losing a CEO job?

3149

I mean, I’ve received that email. I say we really do need to do this right, like X and Y and Z, and my boss says, essentially, I’m tired of arguing about it and you do what you think is best but don’t you dare fuck up my launch date.

3150

I’ve both received and sent that email.

3151

Yeah, me too, now that I think about it.

3152

It’s also weird that as methodically he employs logic from first principles in other topics, here he’s unable to see that he’s committing the fallacy of retrospective determinism. And reductio ad absurduming “if not Bezos, someone else would have” into “everyone is worthless”. I mean, “sell stuff on the Internet” is not exactly quantum theory.

I mean, it doesn’t matter that the (apparently) worthless sack of flesh Calelari didn’t set out to build an Amazon equivalent back then. My family was in no position to put up $250,000 (regardless of whether it was cash or debt financed) in seed money in order for me convince others to investor.

The success of Amazon was due to many factors beyond the Übermensch-ness of Jeff Bezos.

But we’re now recapitulating another thread rather than debating whether Croesus’ wealth - as an obvious indicator of intelligence and wisdom - entitles him to mold society to his liking.

3153

Perhaps that’s the objective.

3154

Then why didn’t you do it? Oh wait, I know… It’s because…

There were tons of people who had WAY more money than that at the time Bezos started Amazon.

Why didn’t THEY do it?

Seriously, you just want to disregard the value of any individual actions taken by anyone. It’s nonsense. Literally nothing you do matters then.

3155

These aren’t contrived examples; this is how companies work. If an ice-cream store is getting busy, they will hire another employee. Amazon hired 400,000 new employees last year to deal with the increased amount of online ordering. Increased demand for a product means that any rational company will increase production of that product, which means more workers. None of this has anything to do with “trickle down” economics.

No, they didn’t lose their jobs. They just went on to other jobs at Amazon. Again, you seem to have a skewed idea of how companies work. Why would a company lay off skilled employees just because one particular project was a failure?

And getting hired for a job is a positive consequence. Getting paid for a job is a negative consequence. You’re acting like the entirety of the employee’s experience is getting fired. If you are unemployed, get hired, work for a company for two years, and then get fired, then the overall consequence (getting hired, getting two years of pay) is greater than the negative consequence (getting fired).

Again, you have no idea how companies actually work. So in this scenario, 100 people work on a project for five years, then the project fails, and now the company fires 500 people to recoup that money??? This is a horrible business decision for a million reasons! I can’t believe you think this is actually how companies deal with a failed project.

That’s not “noble commerce”; that’s just how businesses work. All businesses. You know why Amazon didn’t make a profit for years, even as their revenues were increasing? They put that money into building out infrastructure, expanding the company, hiring more workers, developing new projects, building new warehouses, building data centers…all things that funneled money away from the company and into employees’ pockets.

Yes, I understand the difference, but I don’t think you understand that companies don’t just go around firing people to make up for the money lost on a failed project.

3157

You’re right about this part: The wealth does trickle up. A company opens a new building–they have to pay employees and cleaning staff. Then they work on a product–they have to pay engineers and suppliers. They try to market the product–they pay marketing personnel and presenters. And if the product is successful, then they reinvest that money into hiring more people, opening new buildings, paying more suppliers…and after a while, if the company succeeds, then the stock goes up and the shareholders start making some money. But that whole time, the employees have been getting paid, whether the product succeeds or fails.

3158

Next time y’all shouldn’t get maneuvered into debating Bezos. It might* be more entertaining to see a defense of Zuckerberg and why his contribution to the betterment of mankind makes him so obviously deserving of wealth.

*that word is doing some heavy lifting here

Since my argument keeps getting mischaracterized - at this point I have to assume intentionally - into a borderline attack Imma put this thread back on mute.