
The Bezos backlash: Is 'big philanthropy' a charade? - TheLastSamurai
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45520594
======
DEADBEEFC0FFEE
"Matt Kilcoyne, of the free market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute,
disagrees.

"Quite frankly Bezos's greatest act of philanthropy is Amazon itself," he
argues.

"Lower prices, more choice and competition have delivered billions for Bezos
and billions worth for the hundreds of millions of customers he serves." "

I do think feel strong about Bezos plans, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim
Amazon is a public good.

Pretty sure all the people who worked in book shops don't think so.

~~~
bluecalm
Way more people benefited from Amazon. It's cheaper. It set a new standard in
delivery times and customer support. Its existence improved life of millions
of people by significant margin. That old industry got killed is natural when
progress happens.

~~~
csydas
I'm not sure I'd allow the delivery times and customer support to be
attributed as a real thing to Amazon.

Both were meant as audience capturing tactics and were basically unattainable
by most all other competitors due to costs -- Amazon only avoided it riding on
a large wave of money and eating costs for years until it was the only game in
town.

Now you can't have a thread about Amazon without constant complaints about the
2-Day shipping never really being 2-Day shipping, the constant fakes that
plague the Amazon inventory (with a seemingly blind-eye from Amazon itself on
it), and so on.

These weren't really public goods introduced by Amazon, as plenty of stores
handle the customer service side just fine in most cases, and the delivery
stuff was mostly just investors subsidizing the costs for a time, which
appears to no longer be a major focal point.

~~~
mrob
> I'm not sure I'd allow the delivery times and customer support to be
> attributed as a real thing to Amazon.

Amazon has "Amazon Lockers", which let me accept deliveries at a time
convenient to me, with no human interaction. This is a real improvement over
previous methods, and AFAIK no other retailer in my country has anything
similar.

~~~
coldtea
> _Amazon has "Amazon Lockers", which let me accept deliveries at a time
> convenient to me, with no human interaction._

So, just like a post office box?

Not to mention that the raise of companies like Amazon and the "on demand"
mentality is the one that forces people to not have more regular hours
"convenient to them".

~~~
mrob
Post office boxes are expensive, require filling in an application form, and
require human interaction to access the contents. Amazon Lockers are included
in the normal "free" delivery, require no paperwork, and are completely
automated.

------
zekevermillion
Amazon shares have a lot of value, and Bezos is sitting on a pile of them.
What should Bezos do with that currency -- hoard it? spend it?

This supermoney represents Bezos' capacity to incentivize his fellow humans to
act in concert toward a goal that he can influence. If he hoards it, then it
does nothing for society. Bezos doesn't need it for his personal enjoyment
either. After he leases a couple jets, buys a few homes, and pays for his
staff, I doubt that costs more than tens of millions per year. Not billions.

If he spends it, then he needs to find undertakings that can efficiently
absorb billions of dollars in value and still advance a meaningful goal. Space
exploration is one of those undertakings. Bezos said he has been spending I
think a billion per year on space travel / rocket engineering. There are few
other areas that could so easily use this kind of capital. I would think that
homelessness is another difficult problem that can absorb large amounts of
value.

Maybe this arrangement of accumulation and philanthropy is sub-optimal, and we
should instead tax capital to allocate the surplus democratically rather than
allow the person who accumulated it to make the decision. Well, we already do
that to some degree, with mixed results. Perhaps a little of both is called
for.

In any event, I for one am pleased to see this money going to address
homelessness. I don't care who is making the endowment, as long as the funds
are used well. This is a serious, difficult problem, and this charity seems
meaningful to me, not a purchased indulgence like sponsoring a new museum wing
for example.

~~~
wastedhours
The counter-argument is that, if these super-wealthy individuals didn't feel
the need to extract the maximum wealth from the community (the notion that
it's their fiduciary duty to pay the least in wages or find loopholes to
minimise tax exposure is a myth), then communities in the round would be
better off.

Regardless of if you agree with his actions or not, it's pretty tone-deaf from
a PR perspective - pretty much anyone could have seen the backlash coming. He
doesn't seem to give a monkey's butt about public perception, but there's very
little he can do positively for the community whilst there's still the notion
he's trying to destroy it with his business interests. The money and help he's
trying to provide will just work better and be more effective and efficient if
there's active support for it from all sides. Everything that happens with
that money now will be caveated and judged by his actions.

I'd argue he should wait until he retires from Amazon (a la Bill Gates) if he
does want any efforts to resonate with people. Then again, for good or bad, I
don't think he really cares. I just hope the money can be deployed effectively
whilst attached to him, even if it should have been in the pockets of the
community all along.

~~~
philwelch
The economy isn’t a zero-sum game.

~~~
coldtea
If one closes their eyes to externalities (societal and environmental and
political), then yes, it isn't.

~~~
worldsayshi
If you take those things into account, I can imagine one single source of
positive sums: ecological cost efficiency.

If we can produce as much or more wealth with less ecological footprint then
we have positive sum.

------
stubish
It seems you can't be charitable without someone telling you you should have
given more or given to someone else. It's not a great way of encouraging
charity.

If it is not doing harm and making some lives better, the correct response is
'thank you for making the world a better place'. Even if you think it is self
serving, we should encourage such self serving behavior.

~~~
onion2k
_It seems you can 't be charitable without someone telling you you should have
given more or given to someone else._

Spending money on good causes is great. That's to be definitely something to
be encouraged. Putting all of the decision making about which causes are
'good' in the hands of one individual, or a small group of very similar
individuals, is very, very bad. That's how entire segments of society get
ignored.

~~~
TheTrotters
US federal budget for 2018 is ~4 trillion. Bezos has just donated 2 million.
If that’s really your concern then you should try to keep things in
perspective.

~~~
ti_ranger
> US federal budget for 2018 is ~4 trillion. Bezos has just donated 2 million.
> If that’s really your concern then you should try to keep things in
> perspective.

I think you mean 2 _billion_.

~~~
TheTrotters
Yes, of course, you're right.

------
113
I'm always suspicious of someone that has "philanthropist" at the beginning of
their wikipedia page.

~~~
ATsch
agreed. In my head, it's synonymous with "Did some very questionable things
and then tried to buy his image back and put it on wikipedia"

------
xg15
From the Carnegie quote:

> _" The man of wealth thus becoming the sole agent and trustee for his poorer
> brethren," he wrote, "bringing to their service his superior wisdom,
> experience, and ability to administer - doing for them better than they
> would or could do for themselves."_

How does wisdom about running a business translate into wisdom how other
people should live their life?

~~~
pixl97
Money is power. Power means I'm right.

Pretty much anyone with money and power ever.

------
mac01021
> "If you want to wade into public policy, you have a moral responsibility not
> to put a Band-Aid on cancer," he says, adding that Mr Bezos could work to
> influence policy instead.

Noone interviewed for the article talks about what policies Bezos might lobby
for in order to make a real difference...

------
cromwellian
Lots of comments attacking Amazon for lowering wages but ignoring the fact
that warehouse work in general is on borrowed time and going the way of horse
and buggies ([https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY](https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY))

At some point in the near future, these jobs won’t exist. Are the commentators
suggesting they not be automated? Likewise long truck driver driving is going
to eventually collapse.

Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just
accelerate the drive to full automation.

~~~
krapp
>Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just
accelerate the drive to full automation.

No one is asking that Amazon pay a _vastly_ higher salary to their low tier
employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees and
pay accordingly within a particular market.

The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full time
employee, even if their position is likely to be automated in the future. That
shouldn't be considered a luxury only available to the well-to-do. If the
likelihood of automation is a valid rationale for lowering wages then just
about everyone should be living on borrowed time and $12.00/hr.

And Amazon is pushing for full automation at maximum speed regardless, so
employee wages are likely not a factor in that timeline.

~~~
ti_ranger
> No one is asking that Amazon pay a vastly higher salary to their low tier
> employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees
> and pay accordingly within a particular market.

If Amazon is paying too little compared to that "particular market", surely
they wouldn't get enough applicants?

I guess you mean something else than "market" here ...

> The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full
> time employee, even if their position is likely to be automated in the
> future.

Then the government should set a (higher) minimum wage (and benefits), they
way most other governments in the first (and third) world do.

A company's primary obligation is to their shareholders. A government's
primary obligation should be to their constituents/voters/residents/citizens.
Which one is failing their primary stakeholder the most here?

------
bitL
There used to be time when one was scorned if they donated stuff to needy out
of compassion instead of what justice demanded, i.e. fair living wages. There
was also time when one had to maintain a facade of normalcy but was encouraged
donating to charity in secret so that nobody knew about it. There was also
time when charity meant unconditional help to those who needed it most instead
of a way to reshape world and its culture into one's own image while evading
taxes.

~~~
christophilus
When and where? I don't recall ever learning of such a time. I'm not being
sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious.

------
hguhghuff
Bill Gates didn’t get going with his philanthropy till later.

------
throw2016
Wealth is created with labour and Amazon depends on it, Amazon and Bezos wont
be where they are without the labour of millions of others. The policies of
the last 30 years have left labour in a weak position compared to capital
which has allowed people like Bezos to build wealth for themselves without
proper equity to labour. This is not about 'taking' or redistribution but
ensuring the proper share for labour in the first place for their part in the
process.

Of course if you intention is to privilege capital over labour this is exactly
the results intended but for the rest of society wages are static for 40 years
and ultimately someone has to pay, either Bezos, Wallmart and others via
equitable and fair wages or taxpayers and us via subsidies.

So as a tech worker for instance there is already a huge portion of your
income going to asset inflation and supporting the renteers and the financial
class, now you also have to subsidize poorly paid workers by billionaires like
Bezos, the Walton family and others. You may get low prices but someone has to
pay for the labour, housing, education and medicare and since lobbying works
so well for the wealthy its you who is going to be stranded with the bill.

Again thanks to globalization, 'convenient' tax havens, lobbying and wealth
friendly policies that privilege capital, and sell-out economists businesses
and the wealthy can dodge taxes, access cheaper labour globally, put labour
against each other and get policies for lower taxes. Labour simply does not
have this level of mobility or 'choice' so contrary to conventional narratives
there is 'coercion' since working is not a choice, and if there are not enough
choices you have to accept whatever is available. If your grand plan is
feudalism and a new class of serfs this is exactly how you would go about
creating it.

------
ionised
I see these 'philanthropic' efforts as distractions from what is essentially a
new Gilded Age and its robber barons.

------
lwhi
Unrestricted capitalism will never be a force for good. Left running without
any regulation, the gap between rich and poor will increase adinfinitum.

This kind of philanthropy acts as a last ditch attempt to correct the negative
affects the system produces .. but in my opinion, it's not an effective or
elegant way of doing so. It's main purpose is an exercise in smoke and mirrors
.. by trying to influence our perception and shape the conversation
surrounding whether these excess profits are acceptable in modern society.

~~~
mindcrime
_Unrestricted capitalism will never be a force for good._

Unrestricted capitalism, sadly, doesn't even exist. But capitalism in its
various forms is _already_ a potent force for good - perhaps the most powerful
such force the world has ever known. No other system has done more to create
wealth, raise standards of living, and improve the world.

Attacking capitalism because it's slightly less than perfect at delivering the
ideal end result for everybody, is a horrible kind of "throwing the baby out
with the bathwater".

~~~
lwhi
No it isn't.

The current system isn't working for enough people.

------
qubax
Big "philanthropy" isn't a new concept. It's more than a 100 years old and was
created by the "robber barons" of the gilded age to shelter their money from
taxes and keep the wealth under family control for generations. An added
benefit of these family charities is great PR. The most famous beneficiary of
the charity PR is john d rockefeller whose reputation improved immensely after
setting up his family charities. Rockefeller revolutionized the modern use of
a PR team to burnish one's image through radio, tv, etc. A more recent example
of this is bill gates who used charity and pr teams to shift public perception
of him from a greedy tech monopolistic to a charitable philanthropist. Bezos
is just following in a long line of extremely wealthy people.

Whether it is good for society to immense wealth controlled by family
trusts/chariities or whether the wealth should be taxed and used for public
purposes is something people can debate for an eternity.

------
FullMetalBitch
Sure he could raise all amazon staff salary but that doesn't alter the fact he
is charitable.

------
bg4
Carnegie was very philanthropic. He also ruthlessly exploited his workers.

------
ti_ranger
> "Jeff Bezos can tout himself as a great philanthropist, yet it will not
> absolve him of responsibility if Amazon workers continue to be afraid to
> take toilet breaks and days off sick because they fear disciplinary action
> at work."

In capitalism/free markets, it is the company's responsibility to generate as
much value for shareholders as possible. If paying workers more will not
result in more value for shareholders, doing so could be seen in a negative
light by shareholders.

Bezos is free to do with his _own money_ as he sees fit, but not with his
shareholders (which includes almost all employees BTW.) money.

However, governments are there to ensure that capitalist-motivated behaviour
doesn't negatively affect the community, and should use its power to regulate
the companies by such means as minimum wage, minimum benefits etc.

I really wonder how the "journalists" here fail to see where the problem lies
... but of course most Americans would say they don't want limits on how
little time off they can get and how poor they choose to be ...

~~~
mindcrime
_However, governments are there to ensure that capitalist-motivated behaviour
doesn 't negatively affect the community,_

Where do people come up with this stuff? All evidence suggests that government
is mainly there to act as a hammer to force people to adhere to behavioral
standards that other people dream up, to protect the interests of the rich,
entrenched, elitists who run the government, to enforce regulatory capture, to
violate our civil liberties, and to steal our money.

------
vbuwivbiu
it's a sad world that has philanthropy and charity

------
anentropic
legislate a higher minimum wage, and tax him

------
amelius
Well, even though he made more than 1000x than most people, Bezos is probably
not 10x smarter by any reasonable metric, and certainly doesn't work 10x more
than the rest of us. It's clearly a choice we all made as a society that
allows him to have all this money. The question is: would we have an Amazon
without people who are driven by money? Of course we can never know, but if we
look at the past, where a large amount of technological progress was driven by
monks, it seems the answer is affirmative. Also the amount of work done in OSS
by volunteers points in this direction. So the "charade" is something that we
created, ultimately. The conclusion is that perhaps we could scale down a
little on the capitalism, and let society take care of causes that currently
need the help of philanthropists.

~~~
fastball
When you say "let society take care of it", who exactly do you mean?

~~~
Radim
It's a cowardly way of saying "I want that guy's money, but am too weak to
take it myself".

The fundamental problem with such redistribution schemes is: Who gets to
decide who's weak and who's the villain?

Certainly each individual knows for themselves; typically a variation on "I'm
weak; give me". But coming up with stable, fair valuations for social
contribution is a hard problem. For example, we already know that centralized,
committee-driven solutions are deadly in the long run.

~~~
lwhi
No it isn't.

Limits placed on capitalism, through regulation, might be an example of
letting society (the system) sort itself out.

If limits aren't introduced, the gap between rich and poor becomes too vast.
It become futile for those who have little to even try to adjust their
situation.

I do believe in capitalism, but left to its own devices, it becomes obscene.

~~~
amelius
And a nice example of regulation: net neutrality.

~~~
lwhi
Yes.

Regulation should ensure a fair and level playing field for all. It's not
anti-capitalist, it just stops the big guys from ruining things for everyone
else.

