It's funny how Jeff Bezos can afford astroturf, but can't afford to treat warehouse workers like human beings instead of working them to within an inch of their lives while paying wages no...
It's funny how Jeff Bezos can afford astroturf, but can't afford to treat warehouse workers like human beings instead of working them to within an inch of their lives while paying wages no self-respecting American would accept if they could get a better deal anywhere else.
That scumbag doesn't deserve to be as rich as he is. Nobody does.
It's not that he can't, it's that he chooses not to. Of course he could chose to treat them better, to pay them marginally more, to make them not have to pee in bottles in order to meet the...
It's funny how Jeff Bezos can afford astroturf, but can't afford to treat warehouse workers like human beings instead of working them to within an inch of their lives while paying wages no self-respecting American would accept if they could get a better deal anywhere else.
It's not that he can't, it's that he chooses not to. Of course he could chose to treat them better, to pay them marginally more, to make them not have to pee in bottles in order to meet the quotas. Why pay everyone a bit more when you can pay 10 people to make a few twitter handles each outsource it to a clickfarm in India and pay tiny amounts to get a better result?
I can only understand the Bezos attitude by thinking of it as a mental illness. Not only could he afford to improve tens of thousands of his warehouse/logistics employees' lives, he could afford...
I can only understand the Bezos attitude by thinking of it as a mental illness. Not only could he afford to improve tens of thousands of his warehouse/logistics employees' lives, he could afford to do so without impacting the quality of his own in any measurable way.
Like... I think it's bullshit and would disagree, but I understand the motivation of a rich person who was like "I could sell my Gulfstream and pay my workers more, but then I'd have to fly first class like a damn peasant!" That's just a very ridiculous version of the same calculus we all do when deciding how much of our regular-person money we can afford to give away. But to be able to effect massive international positive change without even noticing -- solely by paying one's own employees more, with no "charitable giving" involved -- and to choose not to, seems like a brain problem.
His net worth at this point is well over 100 billion dollars. There is basically no amount of change he can do to Amazon that would affect his quality of life. This doesn't even remotely apply to him.
"I could sell my Gulfstream and pay my workers more, but then I'd have to fly first class like a damn peasant!"
His net worth at this point is well over 100 billion dollars. There is basically no amount of change he can do to Amazon that would affect his quality of life. This doesn't even remotely apply to him.
Apologies if I'm missing a related point you're making, but is that not what I wrote in the second half of the paragraph you quote, as well as the paragraph preceding it?
Apologies if I'm missing a related point you're making, but is that not what I wrote in the second half of the paragraph you quote, as well as the paragraph preceding it?
I wasn't certain whether you were making the same point or not, just wanted to point out it was a bit absurd of an analogy, because his worth is so much most people can't even fathom it.
I wasn't certain whether you were making the same point or not, just wanted to point out it was a bit absurd of an analogy, because his worth is so much most people can't even fathom it.
I think it's mistaken to attribute decisions like these to Bezos personally. I highly doubt Bezos even had much of a say in it. The problem lies with the company itself. Any public company always...
I think it's mistaken to attribute decisions like these to Bezos personally. I highly doubt Bezos even had much of a say in it. The problem lies with the company itself. Any public company always has the sole goal of maximizing value for shareholders. Literally nothing else matters to them. Yes, Bezos is rich and yes, he probably should be giving away most of his money, but you remove Bezos or replace him and Amazon still is going to underpay its workers if it can get away with it.
True -- they'd probably even be open to shareholder lawsuits if they didn't stick with the status quo. With that said, I still believe Bezos holds some responsibility for the state of his...
True -- they'd probably even be open to shareholder lawsuits if they didn't stick with the status quo. With that said, I still believe Bezos holds some responsibility for the state of his workforce because, given his massive stake in and founding/controlling role at Amazon, he was and is responsible for the corporate structure.
That is, I don't think he should immediately sell all his stock, write a $130b check to "the poors", and retire to the woods (well, that'd be admirable), but I do think he bears responsibility for worker health and solvency, and could take a serious run at making Amazon a SPC/PBC/b-corp if he was at all interested -- and that doing so would not materially affect his personal wealth.
Amazon’s ambassador programme is indicative of how emotional exploitation has become the norm in today’s economy. It is not enough to go to work and collect a paycheque any more; you are increasingly expected to profess a passion for your job. You are increasingly expected to act as if your work makes you happy.
It's funny how Jeff Bezos can afford astroturf, but can't afford to treat warehouse workers like human beings instead of working them to within an inch of their lives while paying wages no self-respecting American would accept if they could get a better deal anywhere else.
That scumbag doesn't deserve to be as rich as he is. Nobody does.
It's not that he can't, it's that he chooses not to. Of course he could chose to treat them better, to pay them marginally more, to make them not have to pee in bottles in order to meet the quotas. Why pay everyone a bit more when you can
pay 10 people to make a few twitter handles eachoutsource it to a clickfarm in India and pay tiny amounts to get a better result?I can only understand the Bezos attitude by thinking of it as a mental illness. Not only could he afford to improve tens of thousands of his warehouse/logistics employees' lives, he could afford to do so without impacting the quality of his own in any measurable way.
Like... I think it's bullshit and would disagree, but I understand the motivation of a rich person who was like "I could sell my Gulfstream and pay my workers more, but then I'd have to fly first class like a damn peasant!" That's just a very ridiculous version of the same calculus we all do when deciding how much of our regular-person money we can afford to give away. But to be able to effect massive international positive change without even noticing -- solely by paying one's own employees more, with no "charitable giving" involved -- and to choose not to, seems like a brain problem.
His net worth at this point is well over 100 billion dollars. There is basically no amount of change he can do to Amazon that would affect his quality of life. This doesn't even remotely apply to him.
Apologies if I'm missing a related point you're making, but is that not what I wrote in the second half of the paragraph you quote, as well as the paragraph preceding it?
I wasn't certain whether you were making the same point or not, just wanted to point out it was a bit absurd of an analogy, because his worth is so much most people can't even fathom it.
Gotcha. And very much agreed!
I think it's mistaken to attribute decisions like these to Bezos personally. I highly doubt Bezos even had much of a say in it. The problem lies with the company itself. Any public company always has the sole goal of maximizing value for shareholders. Literally nothing else matters to them. Yes, Bezos is rich and yes, he probably should be giving away most of his money, but you remove Bezos or replace him and Amazon still is going to underpay its workers if it can get away with it.
True -- they'd probably even be open to shareholder lawsuits if they didn't stick with the status quo. With that said, I still believe Bezos holds some responsibility for the state of his workforce because, given his massive stake in and founding/controlling role at Amazon, he was and is responsible for the corporate structure.
That is, I don't think he should immediately sell all his stock, write a $130b check to "the poors", and retire to the woods (well, that'd be admirable), but I do think he bears responsibility for worker health and solvency, and could take a serious run at making Amazon a SPC/PBC/b-corp if he was at all interested -- and that doing so would not materially affect his personal wealth.
Bill Gates has been doing a fantastic job at putting his money to use. If only more billionaires were like him.
so.... actual shills?
Opinion piece on this that I enjoyed: Amazon’s Twitter ambassadors show hard work isn’t enough – employers expect forced cheerfulness too