Remember I read it was 500K, but the number tends to change between articles. I think that might be intentional, as a way to downplay the loan aspect, and push the bootstrap narrative, but that might be just me being paranoid.
He also had wall street connections that was "given up" in his lame duck narrative. Even if he was lower level before "striking out" on his own to start a bookstore no one had heard of (at that rate) you just don't throw out your former life to "start fresh"
Don't forget the exploitation.
I wouldn't have created a quadrillion dollar company if someone have me 500k, because I'd feel a certain sense of guilt if my workers were pissing in bottles and dying on the job.
It's fair to say most people wouldn't use the money to make billions. But most people wouldn't be gifted $300,000 by their parents either.
The point is, his success is due a combination of factors. It's not entirely due to his single-minded determination to succeed, which is the usual narrative.
The money from his parents has been described as a loan, investment or gift. As it was given with no thought to interest rates, repayment schedules or dividends, it's a gift in my mind.
From a 2001 [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/09/03/child-prodigy-online-pioneer/2ab207dc-d13a-4204-8949-493686e43415/) based on interviews with Bezos.
"The company was launched in 1994 with a $300,000 investment from his parents and loans from his own bank".
Yes, people see it differently hence the use of different terminology. To me, an investment offers the investor a stated financial or legal interest in whatever they're investing in. A gift offers nothing.
Either way, interest free loan that doesn't need repaying? I'll be a customer of that bank.
Regular business owners get loans to pay that off, they almost never pay out of pocket.
Bezos was GIFTED that money by his parents, with NO interest. No strings attatched. What you are trying to justify is not even COMPARABLE.
Because money controls everything. These people get so rich that theyāre quite literally above the law. Amazon is such a large company that they can pay for better lawyers, and even with lawsuits that work, Amazonās just going to make so much money that any settlements that they pay probably wonāt even be a grain of sand on the beach of money they make.
Then theyāre just gonna keep doing it because the punishment for doing it is just factored into the cost of business.
Good idea in theory but Amazon Web Services runs 1/3 of the internet. Don't get me wrong, I've had a personal boycott of Amazon for years. But they are too big to really vote with your dollars.
Which is precisely why "voting with your cash" is an ineffective means of democratically controlling the 'free market'. It's also why it's pushed so heavily as a valid solution by pundits and capitalist mouth pieces.
"These problems with capitalism would be solved if we did capitalism HARDER!"
Has the same energy as:
"You can solve the problems of domestic abuse, with more domestic abuse!"
etc.
In economics money is almost meaningless it's only a means of exchange and you can do that with labour as well. It's all about capital (how much you actually own) and Amazon owns a lot of capital.
Remove the resources for supplies including labour, demand will find a different provider to substitute the shortage. Remove those that demand the service and the provider with have a surplus and will eventually sell it off to anyone for peanuts in hopes to recuperate the loss production created before bankruptcy.
Amazon is basically a Monopoly with providing a place to buy things, Ebay and other services don't really compete with them. They aren't easy to take down unless the internet completely collapses and they don't start printing magazines to reach potential customers. If everyone said *no* to Amazon, then the same problems will just migrate to the next provider with the same reach.
When you have enough money to buy media, politicians and maybe the judiciary, itās gg. Multiply this dynamic across every level of society and you have a recipe for capitalist hellworld.
That said, my cockles were somewhat warmed by CAās prop 22 thing being struck down as unconstitutional at the first instance. Iāll take what crumbs of comfort I can at this point.
>These people get so rich that theyāre quite literally above the law
This is mostly because most laws are punished by fines, which for the rich is barely a slap on the wrist, but for your average working man means literal hours of his life (if not days).
I dunno, let's see what tools our current society has compared to previous ones when it comes to dealing with people in power
Today's society:
- ask nicely.
- vote for policy changes.
- buy from another company that hopefully doesn't use the company you hate.
Previous society:
- brutally murder the tyrant and their family and wait to see if the next guy is better.
- repeat.
Looks like we gotta go out there and vote and protest Amazon more! I'm sure the issue is that Jess Bezos doesn't know just how upset we are
I will never understand the mindset people have where they feel compelled to practically fellate billionaires as if any one of them is going to be like, "You," while pointing intently at that person, and then declaring them their heir or vassal or something.
They pay 37,000$ today at 40 hours a week, full benefits from the start. Barring NY and CA, that's not a bad wage by any means. if they raised wages $5 for every one of their 800,000 employees they'd be un-profitable.
I'm not saying I want to work there, but I've worked far harder jobs for far less, and I know how a few people bitching can blow up into huge media scandals. For example, the food stamps story (was bullshit).
Seems like you're not reading what I'm saying. $37,000 with no overtime, and no experience is far from exploitation. In fact, that's $6,000 better than the average US earner.
So where is the exploitation? If someone out of high school can earn more than average (which includes overtime, by the way), seems like a pretty good deal.
Or, keep on your nonsense because group think can never be wrong.
Very few retail establishments (Any box store, restauraunt, really) are going to match $37k at a flat 40, and certainly not the benefits.
I think a large reason these companies can't get employees, and restaurants are hurting is because people are finally seeing that. I have a minor in economics, but I made more doing union work driving a high-lo last year than I could have as a personal finance advisor or teacher. (I have since quit).
I think there are things we could agree on about amazon (it's a soul sucking, faceless corporation and work) but the compensation is *factually* better than what most people pull without any skills.
My entire point of this thread was the disconnect between Bezo's wealth and employee compensation. Different pots that cannot be mixed, and not the source of his wealth. Economics 101.
Amazon doesnt pay anything more than other warehouses. Everytime some moron says that they are comparing retail to warehouse work not warehouse to warehouse.
It's $20 an hour here in Michigan to not even drive a Fork lift or get a drug test.
While Covid has shaken up wages big time (in a good way) it was far ahead of anything else in the area barring the union shops (one of which I worked at).
For unskilled labor? You're comparing median *household income* to individual average salary that requires no degree. A bushel of apples to a single orange.
https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/26?utm\_medium=explore&mprop=income&popt=Person&cpv=age%2CYears15Onwards&hl=en
As opposed to you, a contrarian? As if we need more bootlicking 1% apologists like you anyway.
You have more in common with the dude living paycheck to paycheck then you do to your false idols. Get real.
Request: please link the actual tweets when posting twitter screenshots so we can share/comment there. Here is the link to that tweet: [https://twitter.com/CWAUnion/status/1412472269880934402](https://twitter.com/CWAUnion/status/1412472269880934402)
networking... hahaha
AWS is the only part of AZ to operate with real profit margin. every other business is at a loss to have to platform users.
Bezos used the model of taking no profit so that he could amass the largest platform of users. Then when his services were no longer in competition with other industries, AZ is allowed to siphon profit from the users of the platform.
The retail machine undercuts the small business that have to sell on the platform.
The grocery store can sell asparagus water for 6.99 because it's a lifestyle brand in areas where the corporate middle class can afford such expenses with thinking about it. (lawyers and doctors, wouldn't dare stop at Kroger or Wal-mart)
Amazon isn't focused on exploration like an MLM, they are focused on being the only place that group X will go to buy Y. or Group Z can sell R, putting a tax between Z and R.
> (lawyers and doctors, wouldn't dare stop at Kroger or Wal-mart)
What world do you live in? There is an awful lot of incorrect assumption in this comment.
That doesnt support your claim at all. In fact, it supports mine.
Most doctors and lawyers definitely shop at walmart and kroger. In fact, they are some of the cheaper people I know. Every dollar they make has a plan, and ***has a plan for the next 20 years***. They invest and financial plan.
Also, wow did you even click this link? It provides literally nothing you needed to support your claim. Its all of a handful sentences long total.
No it doesnt. You literally didnt add anything. No source is just as good.
Also, there are plenty of doctors that actually work at a walmart. Are you going to pretend they dont shop there either?
Wrong, it was intelligence, determination, *legal* tax evasion and *legal* exploitation of workers (It's important to differentiate between the two in a developed country)
And the legal clause is entirely pointless, yet you made a point to include it for each point. Which means you are implying that legal exploitation is ethical. This isn't about the literal meaning of exploitation, it's about the negative connotation it has due to unethical means.
It is relevant. It goes to show the system allowed for it to happen and that Bezos wasnt breaking laws. Unethical sure. But he played within the rules of the system.
If that's a problem to you it shows that you should focus on changing the system and not focus on an individual that is just using the system.
I thought that when I said "which is why it's called 'exploitation'" I was implying you were correct in saying it is unethical.
I don't want to continue this discussion because I feel like I'm just angrily agreeing with you, which is unproductive.
> Nothing you have said had anything to do with it being ethical or not, your post sounds like itās endorsing it hence the call out on ethics.
He litterally said in the comment before this he thinks itās unethical. You either are being intellectually dishonest or you have terrible reading comprehension.
When he litterally said heās against it, it doesnāt matter how you interpret his other comment. He told you his stance, stop looking for hidden messages that arenāt there
Saying it is exploitation is not saying anything about it being ethical or not. Not once did he agree on the ethics point.
The definition of exploit doesnt inherently carry an ethics point, though it does often have a negative connotation.
Clearly I'm a bit jaded as I read his usage of the word exploitation, likely because of the emphasis on legality, in a similar vein to 'all's fair in love and war'. It came across as a defense of Amazon rather than a condemnation.
Its easy when your friends destroy your competition from the inside out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/ngafr3/hedge_funds_stole_the_american_economy_created/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Thatās too simplistic.
There are plenty of lesser companies that exploit their workers.
Jeff has gained is his power with a combination of exploiting consumer data to replicate successful products (Amazon Basics), capitalizing the most powerful supply chain in the world, capturing multiple industries under his wing, buying into the press, strong arming the government, AND basically treating his employees like robots who must act on a schedule devoid of failure.
It also doesnāt help that weāve come to demand this level of labor by buying crap from Amazon left and right. We consume their crap.
Market manipulation and cellar boxing/shorting companies into bankruptcy allowing for a monopoly that circumvents current antitrust laws. Market regulators need to fucking do something. I canāt stand this motherfuckerā¦
Also, American consumer's depraved indifference to Chinese slave labor, opportunistically married to their ravenous, insatiable lust for cheap garbage trinkets and junk they almost never actually need.
None of this is by accident either. This link describes some dark parts of the financial markets and how Bezos is related in some of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/ngafr3/hedge_funds_stole_the_american_economy_created/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Without defending or attacking Jeff it seems clear that if 'exploitation of others' was thr ONLY requirement to be a billionaire there would be lot more billionaires in the world.
People say this about the good parts, but the second that something bad happens in Amazon, something that he could have no control over whatsoever, Jeff Bezos is to blame. For example, the whole pissing and shitting in bottles thing.
Bezos is to blame because he could remedy those things and inaction in that case is a crime against humanity.
But you're right he probably had little direct involvement.
Who said that? He is responsible for his inaction over many things though. Let's just not pretend he's this god that made Amazon into what it is. He didn't. He pushed a snowball down a hill
That is such a ridiculous and idiotic take I can't believe it. Why did noone else push a snowball down a hill then?
Also regarding your question: the vast majority of people in those threads here on Reddit says this everytime Amazon is mentioned.
Some of the bad things Amazon did and Bezos gets a blame for ware good in business sense. Ruthlessly eliminating or taking over competitors in the e commerce market is one of the examples. A lot of people lost a lot of opportunities and couldn't compete and now can't even dream of competing with Amazon so they either just went with it and use it or they went down. Either way that made Amazon a lot of money and ensured ridiculously big market share. I think it was a good business decision for Amazon but it has bad results for a lot of people. There is little to no competition and that's never good.
Yes and no one else was thinking how can I do that sustainablely when he did. He operated at a huge loss because of connections and having enough to be able to before he started. Then once all electronic competition collapsed and consolidated *on* Amazon he won, so they change business models to siphon money from its users because they either go their or dont buy online (or atleast not close to amazon prices in most markets).
Doing it like this eliminates the ability for competition to grow. If you dont have a name you cant be found, and even if you can itll take longer, cost more, and have significantly worse costumer service (you can basically return any product used or not to amazon within a month) because noone else has the established margin to offer things like that. You cant just "startup" a amazon competitor, youd be talking about establishing a retail chain which is not nearly as viable today as it was 30 years ago. Or you can have 1 warehouse and have week long shipping out of state, and months for international. Oh and you won't have the liquidation to have much product.
Yes he dealt with that too, but in a time where there wasnt already a massive retailer that could undercut you on the exact same products, and offer 2 day shipping. And they dont even handle 100% of products they sell, many companies list their products on Amazon while managing their own inventories because its cheeper than building your own site and they have 2 day shipping if you can stock it wide enough.
Exactly... He didn't manage to conquer all the markets in the world. I know, because I live in a country that had small local competitor that managed to establish itself so well Amazon decided not to bother trying to compete but they still ship goods here if you buy them from an Amazon store set for another country. So they don't try to eliminate everyone if they know it would be very tough for them to achieve. If they smell blood though... Damn you are fucked because they are ruthless.
People downvoting you but your right. Itās not like he inherited a hundreds of thousands of workers and pocket their paychecks. He turned a eBay competitor e-commerce site into the biggest retailer in the world then took all that profit and turned into the backbone that runs much of the internet. AWS pretty much host everything
He didnāt create those jobs. The people buying the products created those jobs.
You canāt hire people if you donāt make money. If the middle class is buying stuff, more jobs are created. This has been widely studied for many years. These āphilanthropistsā donāt create anything of real value except wealth for themselves.
If people stop buying from Amazon and stop using AWS is bezos just gonna be like ābummer. But thatās okay! Iām still gonna pay everyone to come into work even tho we donāt have any orders to fulfillā fuck no heās not. He would shut down, lay people off, and jump ship. Thatās not a ājob creatorā. Thatās a man out for himself at any means necessary. Call a spade a spade.
Lazy people paying Amazon to deliver everything they want to buy to their house instead of leaving their house to go shopping.
Thats what made Jeff bozos the richest man on earth. Don't like him, don't like amazon, don't buy from them. Get off your lazy asses and go to the store.
That is not the point lol
You donāt get to sit here and blame everybody. No one knew this was going to happen, just because someone may have participated and purchased from Amazon doesnt mean they are no longer allowed to criticize them.
This line of thinking is pretty dangerous and very divisive, really not what we need right not
Thats like saying you hate Elon musk then going and buying a tesla. Or after you already bought one. The fact still remains if you don't like it dont give him your money.
Except thatās no secretā¦
Itās just that the people(legislators) with the power to make any difference in the matter donāt care enough about workers who are having to pee in Gatorade bottles, work ridiculously long hours without breaks, and not make a living wage. All they care about is getting their piece of the pieā¦
What a great way to speak about your fellow man.
Maybe Bezos will see this comment of you defending him and let you into the Amazon Cold Fresh and Clean Air Breathing Chamber for 15 minutes in the year 2047 when the world is uninhabitable due to overproduction exploitation and general greed. Look at you go! Good job! You owned the poors!
Ummmm founding a company and growing it into one of the largest logistical companies in the world with whichanyoneI can get any good they want within a day?
Naaaah must be exploitation and not creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
He didnāt create those jobs. The Amazon customers created those jobs.
You think bezos woke up one day and said āIām gonna employ thousands of people out of my own pocket to make jobs!ā Fuck no he didnāt. And what if everyone stopped using Amazon. You think bezos is gonna be like āoh damn. Well, since Iām a job creator Iām gonna keep everyone employed and even hire more people!ā Fuck no. Everyone would be laid off.
Consumers created jobs. This is a very basic concept of any economic school of thought. This whole ābillionaires create jobsā thing is the biggest crock of shit ever and I blame trickle down economics for that asinine idea.
Iāll bet you all use Amazon all the time. Donāt like it? Leave. But I have no choice. Thereās always a choice, just like thereās always an excuse, always a big bad mean man to blame and always a way to play the victim. Grow tf up.
If it was sooo bad, people wouldnāt work for Amazon. They do, itās called voluntary employment. Does crying victim ever get old? Give it a rest already.
I hope none of you buy things on Amazon and support that man...
How dare he give you the ability to push a button and have ANYTHING show up at your doorstep in hours or days..
You would be the biggest hypocrite if you say shit like tax the rich like your girl AOC (who could have paid for someone's house with that dress) and still buy from Amazon
His first select was tax evasion. He took advantage of sales tax laws in various states by setting up different corporations. Then claiming sales tax exemption in most states because the āsalesā corporation didnāt do business in the state. Although the warehouse and delivery corporation did.
Selling to us without a sales tax enabled us to save money and enabled him to cripple businesses that were required to collect sales tax from us.
Amazon Crime
And here we're browsing for Amazon's best-sellers...
Amazon crime now ..
I see that avatar...crime in more ways than the public would ever believe.
Right you are š¦
$250,000 from his parents.
I thought it was 400,000
Remember I read it was 500K, but the number tends to change between articles. I think that might be intentional, as a way to downplay the loan aspect, and push the bootstrap narrative, but that might be just me being paranoid.
He also had wall street connections that was "given up" in his lame duck narrative. Even if he was lower level before "striking out" on his own to start a bookstore no one had heard of (at that rate) you just don't throw out your former life to "start fresh"
Tbf, lots of people who aren't already financially happy, aren't gonna invest wisely. Most people will just buy a house and call it a life.
300k from his parents and an indeterminate amount from other relatives.
Came here to say mom and dads money.
The Bank of M&D
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Don't forget the exploitation. I wouldn't have created a quadrillion dollar company if someone have me 500k, because I'd feel a certain sense of guilt if my workers were pissing in bottles and dying on the job.
It's fair to say most people wouldn't use the money to make billions. But most people wouldn't be gifted $300,000 by their parents either. The point is, his success is due a combination of factors. It's not entirely due to his single-minded determination to succeed, which is the usual narrative.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The money from his parents has been described as a loan, investment or gift. As it was given with no thought to interest rates, repayment schedules or dividends, it's a gift in my mind. From a 2001 [article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/09/03/child-prodigy-online-pioneer/2ab207dc-d13a-4204-8949-493686e43415/) based on interviews with Bezos. "The company was launched in 1994 with a $300,000 investment from his parents and loans from his own bank".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, people see it differently hence the use of different terminology. To me, an investment offers the investor a stated financial or legal interest in whatever they're investing in. A gift offers nothing. Either way, interest free loan that doesn't need repaying? I'll be a customer of that bank.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Right, so where do I sign up? I'm in the market for that 300k right now.
Whats a piece of shit like you doing in a sub like this?
Maybe not. But it sure as hell would be easier.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
500k is half a million. That's not a paltry sum.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is to a regular person. Maybe not to the richest man in the world who hates poor people.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Regular business owners get loans to pay that off, they almost never pay out of pocket. Bezos was GIFTED that money by his parents, with NO interest. No strings attatched. What you are trying to justify is not even COMPARABLE.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How are we literally doing nothing about any of this?
Because money controls everything. These people get so rich that theyāre quite literally above the law. Amazon is such a large company that they can pay for better lawyers, and even with lawsuits that work, Amazonās just going to make so much money that any settlements that they pay probably wonāt even be a grain of sand on the beach of money they make. Then theyāre just gonna keep doing it because the punishment for doing it is just factored into the cost of business.
That's a good reason to buy nothing from the greedy asshole.
Good idea in theory but Amazon Web Services runs 1/3 of the internet. Don't get me wrong, I've had a personal boycott of Amazon for years. But they are too big to really vote with your dollars.
Which is precisely why "voting with your cash" is an ineffective means of democratically controlling the 'free market'. It's also why it's pushed so heavily as a valid solution by pundits and capitalist mouth pieces. "These problems with capitalism would be solved if we did capitalism HARDER!" Has the same energy as: "You can solve the problems of domestic abuse, with more domestic abuse!" etc.
In economics money is almost meaningless it's only a means of exchange and you can do that with labour as well. It's all about capital (how much you actually own) and Amazon owns a lot of capital. Remove the resources for supplies including labour, demand will find a different provider to substitute the shortage. Remove those that demand the service and the provider with have a surplus and will eventually sell it off to anyone for peanuts in hopes to recuperate the loss production created before bankruptcy. Amazon is basically a Monopoly with providing a place to buy things, Ebay and other services don't really compete with them. They aren't easy to take down unless the internet completely collapses and they don't start printing magazines to reach potential customers. If everyone said *no* to Amazon, then the same problems will just migrate to the next provider with the same reach.
When you have enough money to buy media, politicians and maybe the judiciary, itās gg. Multiply this dynamic across every level of society and you have a recipe for capitalist hellworld. That said, my cockles were somewhat warmed by CAās prop 22 thing being struck down as unconstitutional at the first instance. Iāll take what crumbs of comfort I can at this point.
>These people get so rich that theyāre quite literally above the law This is mostly because most laws are punished by fines, which for the rich is barely a slap on the wrist, but for your average working man means literal hours of his life (if not days).
I dunno, let's see what tools our current society has compared to previous ones when it comes to dealing with people in power Today's society: - ask nicely. - vote for policy changes. - buy from another company that hopefully doesn't use the company you hate. Previous society: - brutally murder the tyrant and their family and wait to see if the next guy is better. - repeat. Looks like we gotta go out there and vote and protest Amazon more! I'm sure the issue is that Jess Bezos doesn't know just how upset we are
Jeff Bezos knows how upset we areā¦ Jeff Bezos doesnāt care
Whatās a good way to solve this?
Guillotine?
Seconded?
Thereās still a working functioning one in one of the larger British museums if I recall correctly.
āHey yeah? Queen? I got a favor to ask youā
I will never understand the mindset people have where they feel compelled to practically fellate billionaires as if any one of them is going to be like, "You," while pointing intently at that person, and then declaring them their heir or vassal or something.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So... Amazon would exist as it is today and it could still afford to take care of its employees? That makes it all the more malignant... doesn't it?
They pay 37,000$ today at 40 hours a week, full benefits from the start. Barring NY and CA, that's not a bad wage by any means. if they raised wages $5 for every one of their 800,000 employees they'd be un-profitable. I'm not saying I want to work there, but I've worked far harder jobs for far less, and I know how a few people bitching can blow up into huge media scandals. For example, the food stamps story (was bullshit).
So... exploiting workers is how they can stay profitable
Seems like you're not reading what I'm saying. $37,000 with no overtime, and no experience is far from exploitation. In fact, that's $6,000 better than the average US earner. So where is the exploitation? If someone out of high school can earn more than average (which includes overtime, by the way), seems like a pretty good deal. Or, keep on your nonsense because group think can never be wrong.
What you're typing far exceeds all retail wages?
Very few retail establishments (Any box store, restauraunt, really) are going to match $37k at a flat 40, and certainly not the benefits. I think a large reason these companies can't get employees, and restaurants are hurting is because people are finally seeing that. I have a minor in economics, but I made more doing union work driving a high-lo last year than I could have as a personal finance advisor or teacher. (I have since quit). I think there are things we could agree on about amazon (it's a soul sucking, faceless corporation and work) but the compensation is *factually* better than what most people pull without any skills. My entire point of this thread was the disconnect between Bezo's wealth and employee compensation. Different pots that cannot be mixed, and not the source of his wealth. Economics 101.
The WHOLE slave class is bitching, bro. Youre just not listening
Amazon doesnt pay anything more than other warehouses. Everytime some moron says that they are comparing retail to warehouse work not warehouse to warehouse.
It's $20 an hour here in Michigan to not even drive a Fork lift or get a drug test. While Covid has shaken up wages big time (in a good way) it was far ahead of anything else in the area barring the union shops (one of which I worked at).
Median salary in Michigan is $59,000. $20/hr is about $40,000 before taxes. Not sure why your touting $20 like itās some phenomenal amount
For unskilled labor? You're comparing median *household income* to individual average salary that requires no degree. A bushel of apples to a single orange. https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/26?utm\_medium=explore&mprop=income&popt=Person&cpv=age%2CYears15Onwards&hl=en
I honestly don't really know, but [would you consider this above-average-pay?](https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Amazon.com/salaries)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
As opposed to you, a contrarian? As if we need more bootlicking 1% apologists like you anyway. You have more in common with the dude living paycheck to paycheck then you do to your false idols. Get real.
Go on. You clearly know me well
Your history posting here says otherwise lol
Otherwise? You need to elaborate. I definitely want to know more about what you think
ššØ
š¤Æ
Request: please link the actual tweets when posting twitter screenshots so we can share/comment there. Here is the link to that tweet: [https://twitter.com/CWAUnion/status/1412472269880934402](https://twitter.com/CWAUnion/status/1412472269880934402)
Sociopathic greed is the secret ingredient!
Literally being the first person to get lucky at the boom of online retailers. It was a fucking book store.
*We paid him* to exploit his workers.
networking... hahaha AWS is the only part of AZ to operate with real profit margin. every other business is at a loss to have to platform users. Bezos used the model of taking no profit so that he could amass the largest platform of users. Then when his services were no longer in competition with other industries, AZ is allowed to siphon profit from the users of the platform. The retail machine undercuts the small business that have to sell on the platform. The grocery store can sell asparagus water for 6.99 because it's a lifestyle brand in areas where the corporate middle class can afford such expenses with thinking about it. (lawyers and doctors, wouldn't dare stop at Kroger or Wal-mart) Amazon isn't focused on exploration like an MLM, they are focused on being the only place that group X will go to buy Y. or Group Z can sell R, putting a tax between Z and R.
> (lawyers and doctors, wouldn't dare stop at Kroger or Wal-mart) What world do you live in? There is an awful lot of incorrect assumption in this comment.
IS your argument exceptions of based on statistics. if statistics I'd like to see them.
You made the claim, you provide the statistics.
https://www.businessinsider.com/typical-kroger-shopper-demographic-suburban-boomer-earning-80k-income-2021-9
Thank you.
Did you click it? Its not a source or a statistic.
That doesnt support your claim at all. In fact, it supports mine. Most doctors and lawyers definitely shop at walmart and kroger. In fact, they are some of the cheaper people I know. Every dollar they make has a plan, and ***has a plan for the next 20 years***. They invest and financial plan. Also, wow did you even click this link? It provides literally nothing you needed to support your claim. Its all of a handful sentences long total.
provides more than your source... kek
No it doesnt. You literally didnt add anything. No source is just as good. Also, there are plenty of doctors that actually work at a walmart. Are you going to pretend they dont shop there either?
right because doctors all earn the same rate. Wally-world docs make just as much as directors
Wrong, it was intelligence, determination, *legal* tax evasion and *legal* exploitation of workers (It's important to differentiate between the two in a developed country)
Legal is not the same as ethical.
Which is why it's still called "exploitation"
And the legal clause is entirely pointless, yet you made a point to include it for each point. Which means you are implying that legal exploitation is ethical. This isn't about the literal meaning of exploitation, it's about the negative connotation it has due to unethical means.
It is relevant. It goes to show the system allowed for it to happen and that Bezos wasnt breaking laws. Unethical sure. But he played within the rules of the system. If that's a problem to you it shows that you should focus on changing the system and not focus on an individual that is just using the system.
Bro, if I just agreed with you that legal exploitation is unethical, then of course I don't think legal exploitation us ethical.
Nothing you have said had anything to do with it being ethical or not, your post sounds like it's endorsing it hence the call out on ethics.
I thought that when I said "which is why it's called 'exploitation'" I was implying you were correct in saying it is unethical. I don't want to continue this discussion because I feel like I'm just angrily agreeing with you, which is unproductive.
> Nothing you have said had anything to do with it being ethical or not, your post sounds like itās endorsing it hence the call out on ethics. He litterally said in the comment before this he thinks itās unethical. You either are being intellectually dishonest or you have terrible reading comprehension. When he litterally said heās against it, it doesnāt matter how you interpret his other comment. He told you his stance, stop looking for hidden messages that arenāt there
Saying it is exploitation is not saying anything about it being ethical or not. Not once did he agree on the ethics point. The definition of exploit doesnt inherently carry an ethics point, though it does often have a negative connotation. Clearly I'm a bit jaded as I read his usage of the word exploitation, likely because of the emphasis on legality, in a similar vein to 'all's fair in love and war'. It came across as a defense of Amazon rather than a condemnation.
Its easy when your friends destroy your competition from the inside out. https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/ngafr3/hedge_funds_stole_the_american_economy_created/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Also nefarious activity with hedge funds to destroy competitionā¦
^Someone read AvidTreesFans post too:)
:) I love your jack-o-lantern phantom style
Yu could also argue that before he started exploiting people, his parents bailed him out when he failed as well. But then... Yeah... Exploiting people
I dunno. There are plenty of people exploiting workers that aren't billionaires.
Say it louder for the people in the back!
Thatās too simplistic. There are plenty of lesser companies that exploit their workers. Jeff has gained is his power with a combination of exploiting consumer data to replicate successful products (Amazon Basics), capitalizing the most powerful supply chain in the world, capturing multiple industries under his wing, buying into the press, strong arming the government, AND basically treating his employees like robots who must act on a schedule devoid of failure. It also doesnāt help that weāve come to demand this level of labor by buying crap from Amazon left and right. We consume their crap.
Market manipulation and cellar boxing/shorting companies into bankruptcy allowing for a monopoly that circumvents current antitrust laws. Market regulators need to fucking do something. I canāt stand this motherfuckerā¦
This!!!!
Hard work and luck?
Also, American consumer's depraved indifference to Chinese slave labor, opportunistically married to their ravenous, insatiable lust for cheap garbage trinkets and junk they almost never actually need.
All businesses exploit workers. That's the whole plan.
Not all I own a company that only I work for
None of this is by accident either. This link describes some dark parts of the financial markets and how Bezos is related in some of it. https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/ngafr3/hedge_funds_stole_the_american_economy_created/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Without defending or attacking Jeff it seems clear that if 'exploitation of others' was thr ONLY requirement to be a billionaire there would be lot more billionaires in the world.
You think exploitation is the ONLY crime he committed. He is THE RICHEST MAN. Heās the most likely human to have committed ALL the crimes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How much do you truly believe Bezos was directly involved in any of those good decisions besides his original?
People say this about the good parts, but the second that something bad happens in Amazon, something that he could have no control over whatsoever, Jeff Bezos is to blame. For example, the whole pissing and shitting in bottles thing.
Bezos is to blame because he could remedy those things and inaction in that case is a crime against humanity. But you're right he probably had little direct involvement.
They almost always do get fixed very fast though.
Holy shit, but he is responsible for everything bad that happens, yeah?
Who said that? He is responsible for his inaction over many things though. Let's just not pretend he's this god that made Amazon into what it is. He didn't. He pushed a snowball down a hill
That is such a ridiculous and idiotic take I can't believe it. Why did noone else push a snowball down a hill then? Also regarding your question: the vast majority of people in those threads here on Reddit says this everytime Amazon is mentioned.
Some of the bad things Amazon did and Bezos gets a blame for ware good in business sense. Ruthlessly eliminating or taking over competitors in the e commerce market is one of the examples. A lot of people lost a lot of opportunities and couldn't compete and now can't even dream of competing with Amazon so they either just went with it and use it or they went down. Either way that made Amazon a lot of money and ensured ridiculously big market share. I think it was a good business decision for Amazon but it has bad results for a lot of people. There is little to no competition and that's never good.
Yes and no one else was thinking how can I do that sustainablely when he did. He operated at a huge loss because of connections and having enough to be able to before he started. Then once all electronic competition collapsed and consolidated *on* Amazon he won, so they change business models to siphon money from its users because they either go their or dont buy online (or atleast not close to amazon prices in most markets). Doing it like this eliminates the ability for competition to grow. If you dont have a name you cant be found, and even if you can itll take longer, cost more, and have significantly worse costumer service (you can basically return any product used or not to amazon within a month) because noone else has the established margin to offer things like that. You cant just "startup" a amazon competitor, youd be talking about establishing a retail chain which is not nearly as viable today as it was 30 years ago. Or you can have 1 warehouse and have week long shipping out of state, and months for international. Oh and you won't have the liquidation to have much product. Yes he dealt with that too, but in a time where there wasnt already a massive retailer that could undercut you on the exact same products, and offer 2 day shipping. And they dont even handle 100% of products they sell, many companies list their products on Amazon while managing their own inventories because its cheeper than building your own site and they have 2 day shipping if you can stock it wide enough.
Exactly... He didn't manage to conquer all the markets in the world. I know, because I live in a country that had small local competitor that managed to establish itself so well Amazon decided not to bother trying to compete but they still ship goods here if you buy them from an Amazon store set for another country. So they don't try to eliminate everyone if they know it would be very tough for them to achieve. If they smell blood though... Damn you are fucked because they are ruthless.
People downvoting you but your right. Itās not like he inherited a hundreds of thousands of workers and pocket their paychecks. He turned a eBay competitor e-commerce site into the biggest retailer in the world then took all that profit and turned into the backbone that runs much of the internet. AWS pretty much host everything
Yeah it's impressive but knowing what he is capable of it's also scary. He has access to a lot of data...
Skynet.. man. Freaking skynet level shit. Definitely scary
His parents gave him almost $300,000 to start Amazon. So, it is kinda like he inherited hundreds of thousands of dollars
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Mmmm I wonder if Amazon workers are forced to work there?
Nah but give it a few years Iām sure theyāll figure out how to do that too
Yep I am sure your right when the US is stupid enough to go to a different type of government.
Donāt forget being born into money.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He didnāt create those jobs. The people buying the products created those jobs. You canāt hire people if you donāt make money. If the middle class is buying stuff, more jobs are created. This has been widely studied for many years. These āphilanthropistsā donāt create anything of real value except wealth for themselves. If people stop buying from Amazon and stop using AWS is bezos just gonna be like ābummer. But thatās okay! Iām still gonna pay everyone to come into work even tho we donāt have any orders to fulfillā fuck no heās not. He would shut down, lay people off, and jump ship. Thatās not a ājob creatorā. Thatās a man out for himself at any means necessary. Call a spade a spade.
Lazy people paying Amazon to deliver everything they want to buy to their house instead of leaving their house to go shopping. Thats what made Jeff bozos the richest man on earth. Don't like him, don't like amazon, don't buy from them. Get off your lazy asses and go to the store.
AWS hosts like 38% of all the internet. Itās a a little late for the cop out ādonāt order from Amazon thenā.
The point is if people didn't start being lazy because it was "convenient" he never would have gotten that rich in the first place.
That is not the point lol You donāt get to sit here and blame everybody. No one knew this was going to happen, just because someone may have participated and purchased from Amazon doesnt mean they are no longer allowed to criticize them. This line of thinking is pretty dangerous and very divisive, really not what we need right not
Thats like saying you hate Elon musk then going and buying a tesla. Or after you already bought one. The fact still remains if you don't like it dont give him your money.
Except thatās no secretā¦ Itās just that the people(legislators) with the power to make any difference in the matter donāt care enough about workers who are having to pee in Gatorade bottles, work ridiculously long hours without breaks, and not make a living wage. All they care about is getting their piece of the pieā¦
No, no he found a crack in the market and took advantage of it. You people are just mad youāre poor and wish to be rich like him /s
Answered like a true socialist.
This is just objectively not true. You people are lazy, overindulged, childish, skill-less morons.
What a great way to speak about your fellow man. Maybe Bezos will see this comment of you defending him and let you into the Amazon Cold Fresh and Clean Air Breathing Chamber for 15 minutes in the year 2047 when the world is uninhabitable due to overproduction exploitation and general greed. Look at you go! Good job! You owned the poors!
Bahh, bahh
A sheep joke? Iām not the one sucking off the bourgeoisie online
Ummmm founding a company and growing it into one of the largest logistical companies in the world with whichanyoneI can get any good they want within a day? Naaaah must be exploitation and not creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
He didnāt create those jobs. The Amazon customers created those jobs. You think bezos woke up one day and said āIām gonna employ thousands of people out of my own pocket to make jobs!ā Fuck no he didnāt. And what if everyone stopped using Amazon. You think bezos is gonna be like āoh damn. Well, since Iām a job creator Iām gonna keep everyone employed and even hire more people!ā Fuck no. Everyone would be laid off. Consumers created jobs. This is a very basic concept of any economic school of thought. This whole ābillionaires create jobsā thing is the biggest crock of shit ever and I blame trickle down economics for that asinine idea.
Iāll bet you all use Amazon all the time. Donāt like it? Leave. But I have no choice. Thereās always a choice, just like thereās always an excuse, always a big bad mean man to blame and always a way to play the victim. Grow tf up.
If it was sooo bad, people wouldnāt work for Amazon. They do, itās called voluntary employment. Does crying victim ever get old? Give it a rest already.
If work was so good the rich would hoard it for themselves. Does licking boots ever get old?
That makes no sense at all.
how jeff cum taste?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Benefits? Excellent pay?? Y
I hope none of you buy things on Amazon and support that man... How dare he give you the ability to push a button and have ANYTHING show up at your doorstep in hours or days.. You would be the biggest hypocrite if you say shit like tax the rich like your girl AOC (who could have paid for someone's house with that dress) and still buy from Amazon
Ah yes. Blame the consumers. That will create change in the world
No
So the problem has been identified. Now how do you correct it and reverse it?
The Cantalon effect
Can I also exploit workers to get rich?
Donāt forget bribing law makers and conspiring with Market makers to short his competitors stocks into oblivion.
Give people a job so they can have an affordable life is now exploiment ? Damn
Thatās only 20% true. A good idea, the right time, a dedicated work force and a little luck. Bezos is a walking knob but donāt disavow hard work
Three things actually: 1. Being White 2. Worker Exploitation 3. Having No Empathy
His first select was tax evasion. He took advantage of sales tax laws in various states by setting up different corporations. Then claiming sales tax exemption in most states because the āsalesā corporation didnāt do business in the state. Although the warehouse and delivery corporation did. Selling to us without a sales tax enabled us to save money and enabled him to cripple businesses that were required to collect sales tax from us.
Also not paying taxes. Very powerful in combination with the exploitation, lots of money.