
Jeff Bezos' Day One fund gives $97.5M to first 24 recipients - CitizenTekk
https://www.cnet.com/news/jeff-bezos-day-one-fund-gives-out-97-5-million-to-first-24-awardees/
======
a-dub
I dunno. I think a $2bn endowment that hands out $200mm/yr to those who are
most in need is pretty damned cool.

Hopefully it's the beginning of what's to come.

The thing to keep in mind is that the guy has $infinity and his company has
infinity success. Neither have to continue as they have already won. What will
define the legacy is what is done with the accumulated wealth, this seems to
be a good first step.

... and yes, the PR is important. Maybe it will encourage more wealthy people
to give back, in substantial ways even.

I don't see the value in sneering at philanthropy... ever.

~~~
johneth
> I think a $2bn endowment that hands out $200mm/yr to those who are most in
> need is pretty damned cool.

Tax is a superior way of doing this. Tax and where to spend it is in principle
decided by all the people, democratically, whereas this method is decided at
the whims of one man who got lucky.

~~~
quest88
Where do you live? In the US this isn't true. In the US we've decided to
democratically spend it on the military.

~~~
gowld
If by "military" you also mean Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
unemployment insurance, space exploration, K-12 education, and scientific
research sure.

~~~
dplgk
I'd like to see the budget for each of those services.

------
kennyadam
It's nice that rather than paying people sensible wages, we make people mega-
billionaires and then they hand back a fraction of it.

~~~
maxxxxx
I have been thinking about this. If a business pays their employees well they
don't look good on the stock market and they don't get PR points for
philanthropy. On the other hand if you squeeze out every bit of profit, you
look good in the stock market and you get big PR points if you do a little
philanthropy. The decision seems pretty clear.

~~~
johneth
Maybe. I would argue that long term it isn't. Businesses and the people who
control them are only that wealthy because society lets them be that wealthy.
Damaging society (e.g. via increasingly obscene wealth inequality making
people more unhappy) means, long-term, risking massive societal upheaval, and
thus your position.

~~~
maxxxxx
"Damaging society (e.g. via increasingly obscene wealth inequality making
people more unhappy) means, long-term, risking massive societal upheaval, and
thus your position."

Do you think that current businesses think about this a lot?

------
option_greek
Does it hurt to put 24 organizations instead of 24 recipients. As clickbaity
as it can get.

~~~
brink
It sounds like a lotto

------
zimablue
Charity exists on a scale from very considered to not at all considered, same
scale with not very effective/$ to very effective/$. There are meta-charities
that try to evaluate the effectiveness of other charities. The point is that
this is at the "not considered/effective" end of the scale. The really
pressing problems of the world aren't American homelessness, and homelessness
is not a cost effective problem to try and solve (compared to eg. people dying
of water-borne diseases in the third world). So he either hasn't thought about
it, or doesn't really care (and the two are connected one implies the other).

~~~
dragonwriter
> So he either hasn't thought about it, or doesn't really care

Or he just has different subjective values than you do, since effectiveness is
always (subjectively chosen value function)/$

------
darkstar999
It's like a normal person giving $100 to charity. Wouldn't it be cool if you
could move the needle on vulnerable children with pocket change? (I'm not
downplaying his charity, just putting it in perspective)

~~~
jopsen
And if everybody donated 100 USD to charity that it would have huge impact :)

In related news: extreme poverty is likely disappearing over the next 10
years, if you want earn some karma points by saving people in need, now is the
time to act.

------
irq-1
As a historical note: George Peabody was famous for helping the homeless in
London and there is still a statue of him outside the Royal Exchange.

> George Peabody, an American financier and philanthropist, is widely regarded
> as the father of modern philanthropy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody)

He also donated the money he had promised to his partner Junius Morgan.

------
techterrier
Or he could try paying his taxes.

------
jakelazaroff
Amazon was given $2B in tax subsidies for HQ2 by New York and Virginia. We may
as well be paying for this with our tax dollars.

~~~
misiti3780
read: [https://avc.com/2018/11/the-overpay-
critique/](https://avc.com/2018/11/the-overpay-critique/)

~~~
jakelazaroff
That's a non sequitur; Amazon would still have built its HQ2s _somewhere_ if
not NY and VA. My point is the tax subsidies are roughly equal to $2B, so they
effectively cancel out the fund.

~~~
jjeaff
They could have built it in a state with little or no corporate tax.

------
cazum
Reminder that the reason he is doing this is to trick you into thinking
massive top-heavy wealth accumulation can be sustainable or in any way "good".

If you need any evidence that this is anything but a PR sham, read this:
[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/amazon-seattle-
repea...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/amazon-seattle-repeal-head-
tax-homelessness)

~~~
notyourwork
Perhaps you could describe your interpretation of the article referenced and
why you feel he is trying to trick people by giving away ~$100M.

~~~
aylmao
My interpretation:

\- Paying this small tax would help the homeless, but Jeff/Amazon would see no
direct benefit from this.

\- Donating money has the direct benefit of positive PR. The last wealthiest
guy in the world did it too-- so arguably not doing it is in fact not a
neutral stance but negative PR.

Hence it's in Jeff Bezos' interest to pay less taxes and donate the money it
takes to make the headlines.

~~~
lisper
It's also important to remember that while $100M sounds like a lot of money
(and it is) it is only 0.1% of Bezos's net worth. It's the equivalent of
someone whose net worth is $1M giving away $1000.00. And actually, it's not
even equivalent to that because if you have $1M and you give away $1000 you
can no longer afford to buy something that costs $1M. But when your net worth
is $100B and you give away $100M your net worth is still $99.9B. You are still
the richest man in the world by a wide margin, and there is essentially
nothing you can't buy.

~~~
notyourwork
Really excellent perspective on this. However, I don't think we should
downplay anyone giving away that amount of money. I'd rather someone give away
$100M compared to $0 even if its peanuts for them based on their personal
finance.

It seems odd that society feels entitled to decide what the richest person in
the world should and shouldn't do with their money. I don't disagree with
premise that he can hand away $5B and still not bat an eye but why is it out
decision to make?

~~~
cazum
>I'd rather someone give away $100M compared to $0 even if its peanuts for
them based on their personal finance.

Yes, it's good that he has given away some money, and this money will do real
good, it's important not to let this blur the focus on the real issue:

There are desperate, homeless people in this country. There are people who are
refusing necessary medical treatment because they cannot "afford" healthcare.
There are people who will go into crippling debt for attending higher
education. Most people I know say they will never be able to afford a home
because the price of rent doesn't leave any room for savings.

All of these problems can be remedied by a society deciding collectively not
to allow single people to accumulate exorbitant amounts of wealth, and
instead, collectively spread that money among the population who need it,
democratically. There is no social benefit in padding out a Mossack-Fonseca
tax-free account of dubious offshore legality so one man can attain massive
political and social power. There is value, however, in using those resources
to employ people in the project of tackling real, fixable social problems that
other countries have figured out already. Green energy, healthcare for all,
free education, job guarantees, infrastructure upgrades. It's all within the
fiscal budget so long as there aren't single people, or small groups of
shareholders becoming unnecessarily rich just because we've stacked an
economic system in their favor.

The idea that these are "his savings" just because he amassed them under our
current system is missing the perspective that this system is not immutable.
It can, and has, been changed before, and can change again. It is in the
process of changing in other parts of the world right now, and with good
results at that.

~~~
notyourwork
Where do you propose drawing the line on too much versus just enough fortune?
Is $1M enough but $1B isn't? There will always be one person that is the most
wealthy person in the world unless you want to go the opposite route and turn
the free market into a socialist society. I don't disagree with the problems
of the world and healthcare and basic human needs are hard to come by for a
large group of people. That problem need not be conflated with the
disagreement that there is a single person who has more wealth than anyone
else.

How was the system stacked in Jeff's favor exactly? He started a company and
grew it to become what it is today. I really don't understand how the system
is stacked in his or any one persons favor. I agree the rich get more wealthy
and the poor less but that problem isn't systemic of Jeff Bezos' personal
wealth accumulation.

------
nsx147
That was fast.

