[dpark]

Amazon wouldn’t exist without Bezos. It’s kind of a stretch to say he’s leeching off his employees when his vision and drive literally gave rise to Amazon.

Also I’m pretty sure Bezos doesn’t collect much salary. His wealth is tied to how much Amazon is worth. He’s essentially taking nothing from his workers because his net worth is based pretty much entirely on how much someone else is willing to pay for his shares.

[jartelt]

Amazon also wouldn't exist in their current capacity without all their warehouse workers. I think the idea is that Bezos could have either sold some of Amazon stock over the years and paid his warehouse workers a better wage or he could have put some of his shares into an options pool for his warehouse workers. If he did that maybe he would only have $10B in wealth today, but many warehouse workers would be better off.

Instead, he kept all those shares and has more money than he could ever spend and many warehouse workers have worked incredibly hard and been unable to build any wealth over the years.

[mjburgess]

This myth of "more money than can spend" is pretty pathological.

It's not true. He uses his money to fund space flight initiatives, and many other things besides.

Billionaires use their billions to make more billions. If it was wasted on unproductive spending, the future would be poorer than the present.

[thegayngler]

Is it unproductive spending? What makes you think that workers who want to live a decent life are spending unproductively? Why is it more productive to spend money on space flight initiatives?

[dpark]

> I think the idea is that Bezos could have either sold some of Amazon stock over the years and paid his warehouse workers a better wage or he could have put some of his shares into an options pool for his warehouse workers.

The board of directors can allocate stock to warehouse workers and/or pay them more. For that matter, you could send your money to these warehouse workers and yet you don't. This idea that Bezos should personally give up his fortune to increase warehouse worker compensation is a bit absurd. Amazon isn't a charity and its employees are not a registered 503c, either.

[jartelt]

Yes, the board could have absolutely done that. And Bezos could have asked the board to do that as well, but chose no to. If the company did that, I argue it would have been just as successful (if not more) and many of their low wage workers would be more loyal and would have more wealth. The primary difference would be Jeff Bezos having a smaller fortune.

For profit companies can pay their workers better and still prosper. No one is suggesting Amazon should have been a non-profit. The suggestion is just that their CEO could have shared the wealth more with his workers. Workers who helped him build his fortune.

[claudiawerner]

Microsoft wouldn't exist without Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to any and all benefit derived therein to divide up between his employees. It's funny how justifications for the wealth of these people usually fall to unquantifiable metrics like "vision" rather than concrete labour, which is the sole standard ordinary workers are judged by.

To use a metaphor, a slave owner having the "vision" for a palaestra including all its designs does not mean that he does not exploit the slaves (who, remember, wouldn't have a job if it weren't for him, nor would the palaestra exist). In the philosophy of exploitation, exploitation can occur even in mutually beneficial relationships.

[dpark]

I don't think anyone proposes that Bezos is "entitled to any and all benefit" that Amazon produces, either. Indeed his wealth is tied merely to his initial ownership with almost no additional wealth flowing to him in terms of cash or stock from Amazon. Whether or not warehouse workers should get paid more seems to be a very different issue than whether Bezos deserves to continue to own the stock he literally created.

Also your metaphor sucks. If you think that wage workers are on par with slaves, I suggest you look a bit more into what slavery actually is.

[claudiawerner]

The metaphor is not formally equating wage labourers to slaves, it's an illustration of the principle of exploitation in relationships where, in a technical sense, both parties benefit. That's why it's a metaphor, not a simile.

[dpark]

You’re defending your absurd metaphor by turning to pedantry about definitions.

You metaphor still sucks because it doesn’t say anything useful. It’s purely an emotional appeal. You could apply your metaphor to literally any employment relationship and it’s no different. The CEO is (over)compensated for vision and so everyone else is exploited, from the Executive Vice Presidents down to the receptionists.

[claudiawerner]

>The CEO is (over)compensated for vision and so everyone else is exploited, from the Executive Vice Presidents down to the receptionists.

The argument is not that employees are exploited because the CEO is over-compensated for vision, but rather that it follows naturally for such relationships to work at scale. Nevertheless, it's useful as a thought experiment, since it ought to make people consider the nature of modern work and life in capitalism. Indeed, some philosophers do apply this to all employment relationships[0], the most extreme argue that they are exploitative, the less extreme only inquire to the nature of our desires in the employment relationship[1].

If that's where the argument leads then that's where it goes.

[0] John Roemer, Yoshihara and Veneziani, Marx

[1] Frederic Lordon's Spinozist anthropology

[dpark]

The argument doesn't lead there. You started it there. Your initial premise is that wage work is akin to slavery. I disagree, and your response is "well, that's where the argument leads". No, not at all.

I'm a bit confused by your statement that "it [exploitation] follows naturally for such relationships to work at scale". If this is how it naturally works, then is there a viable alternative? I also don't agree that this is (necessarily) exploitative. Perhaps we have differing opinions of what "exploitation" means. If we have a business partnership that is mutually beneficial, but you profit from it more than me, is that exploitative?

[AnimalMuppet]

> Microsoft wouldn't exist without Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to any and all benefit derived therein to divide up between his employees.

More people have become millionaires by being Microsoft employees than by any other mechanism. Via stock options, Microsoft very much shared the gains with their employees.