Jeff Bezos Wants Ideas for Philanthropy, So He Asked Twitter(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Jeff Bezos Wants Ideas for Philanthropy, So He Asked Twitter
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/technology/jeff-bezos-amazon-twitter-charity.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
63 comments
What does this have to do with "philanthropy"?
It's a good cause that would the increase of welfare his workers. It would additionally empower others to unionize and improve their quality of life as well.
I'd say countries with strong unions like France have seen the detrimental effects of such unions (ongoing strikes for no reason except asking for more holidays and higher waves even though the said professions are already well above the median in all metrics). At the same time, such strikes disrupt everyone's else business and comes as a net cost for society.
Median wage is meaningless against systems with long term stagnant wage growth against a rising cost of living. Strikes don't have an effect unless they disrupt something, that's why they work. If you see a minor inconvenience to your morning commute instead of a collective work for your rights as a worker then I'm not really sure where your priorities lie.
It's not a minor inconvenience to your commute when you can't get a train or a bus at all to go to work, several times a month. It makes you need to purchase a car and all the trouble that goes with it.
That presumes that Amazon can't substantially automate their labor away, which is exactly what they'll aggressively do if you raise said cost of labor a lot.
The actual end result will be far greater tax payer cost for fully subsidizing people that no longer have any employment, versus partial subsidization.
There isn't an advanced economy in all of Europe for example that doesn't use heavy government (aka the top 50% of income earners) subsidization for the benefit of the bottom 50% of earners. The healthcare systems in Britain and France? The bottom 50% of employed persons are not primarily paying for those very expensive benefits, they're receiving large government subsidies that help offset their terrible pay, in the form of all sorts of welfare benefits. Britain for example has such a low median wage, it barely qualifies them as the 50th poorest US state, how do you think their bottom 50% of workers get by if not through huge subsidies via the government to offset that terrible pay? For some reason when companies in the US do the same exact thing, it's evil.
The actual end result will be far greater tax payer cost for fully subsidizing people that no longer have any employment, versus partial subsidization.
There isn't an advanced economy in all of Europe for example that doesn't use heavy government (aka the top 50% of income earners) subsidization for the benefit of the bottom 50% of earners. The healthcare systems in Britain and France? The bottom 50% of employed persons are not primarily paying for those very expensive benefits, they're receiving large government subsidies that help offset their terrible pay, in the form of all sorts of welfare benefits. Britain for example has such a low median wage, it barely qualifies them as the 50th poorest US state, how do you think their bottom 50% of workers get by if not through huge subsidies via the government to offset that terrible pay? For some reason when companies in the US do the same exact thing, it's evil.
I think the base economic theory is that companies will pay for labor exactly what that labor is worth to them. Analogous to the concepts of full-time and part-time employment, is the concept of full-coverage pay or partial coverage where the government picks up the rest.
The problem I have with the system is that everyone who is actually paying receives the least benefits. It's just wealth redistribution. But inevitably it also disincentives work the more the subsides increase in value, and the sharper the drop-off as additional work is performed.
So how do you structure a system which encourages work? The obvious solution is that benefits should increase as tax payments increase. The makes working super-incentivized, and provides a massive boost to productivity.
Aside from technology improvements, which the economists tell us aren't really providing bang for the buck anymore, increasing the size of the workforce increases GDP growth.
The problem I have with the system is that everyone who is actually paying receives the least benefits. It's just wealth redistribution. But inevitably it also disincentives work the more the subsides increase in value, and the sharper the drop-off as additional work is performed.
So how do you structure a system which encourages work? The obvious solution is that benefits should increase as tax payments increase. The makes working super-incentivized, and provides a massive boost to productivity.
Aside from technology improvements, which the economists tell us aren't really providing bang for the buck anymore, increasing the size of the workforce increases GDP growth.
> I think the base economic theory is that companies will pay for labor exactly what that labor is worth to them.
I imagine they would pay less, rather than just break even.
I imagine they would pay less, rather than just break even.
I think if efficiency conscious companies like Amazon or fast food inc could find savings in automation they would.
They have workers because they need them to run their business, not out of a sense of charity.
Talk of automation as a 'threat' every time workers rights are brought up is disingenuous and a bit self serving.
They have workers because they need them to run their business, not out of a sense of charity.
Talk of automation as a 'threat' every time workers rights are brought up is disingenuous and a bit self serving.
Why's that a problem? I'd love for robots to take care of me.
It's a problem because universal basic income can't even remotely work mathematically and is wildly regressive. That leaves only the option of taxing the new robotic labor to offset the FICA tax losses from millions of unemployed persons at the exact time when entitlement costs are exploding upwards. There's no other means to fill in the gap that will be left in the tax revenue from any meaningful leap in automation near-term (next 10-20 years). Will those new taxes come to be, and will they make sense (ie not cause chaos and or economic disaster)? At least in the US, one would have to bet against it working out well given the extreme government dysfunction and inability to solve even simple problems; even just the odds of any such taxes getting implemented is a long shot (the Republican Party will oppose it for better or worse).
Basic income at what level can't even remotely work? Of course there are funding levels where basic income does work, and then everyone is then free to go to work and earn any additional amount they desire.
One key point is that being able to work to subsidize the basic income makes the income much more powerful than "phantom" dollars that disappear as soon as you start to work.
The trick is that the funding level of basic income doesn't have to "fully cover" a family of four. The family of four will be able to supplement the income, rather than today being locked into receiving it. Also, it doesn't mean that programs like SSDI go away, you still can provide national disability insurance.
One key point is that being able to work to subsidize the basic income makes the income much more powerful than "phantom" dollars that disappear as soon as you start to work.
The trick is that the funding level of basic income doesn't have to "fully cover" a family of four. The family of four will be able to supplement the income, rather than today being locked into receiving it. Also, it doesn't mean that programs like SSDI go away, you still can provide national disability insurance.
One of the problems is that powerful people are predicting widespread, permanent unemployment and proposing basic income as a solution to this. Then the same article that says this has glowing, warm stories about how basic income can supplement your underpaid job and says not one word about how dreadful it will be to live in a world where you have to get by on basic income, possibly forever after, with little or no hope of supplementing it with an earned income.
That's a pretty grim picture that no one seems to be acknowledging.
That's a pretty grim picture that no one seems to be acknowledging.
What's grim is getting a tooth ache and having no where to go, so you go to the ER, they prescribe you pain meds that don't work, and then tell you to go see your regular doctor, which you don't have, because you're poor.
Grim is having an infection with no way to get antibiotics, but you use your friend's because he had some that he never used.
Grim is going to the food pantry because you ran out of money and then you have to fill out a promise to get financial help if you need to use the food pantry too often, as if you don't know how money works.
Sounds to me like you need to get out more and see how people really live.
I'd rather live in a world where I can't watch all the tv I want cuz i can't afford any, but at least I get basic healthcare.
Grim is having an infection with no way to get antibiotics, but you use your friend's because he had some that he never used.
Grim is going to the food pantry because you ran out of money and then you have to fill out a promise to get financial help if you need to use the food pantry too often, as if you don't know how money works.
Sounds to me like you need to get out more and see how people really live.
I'd rather live in a world where I can't watch all the tv I want cuz i can't afford any, but at least I get basic healthcare.
I am pro universal basic healthcare. I have written about that. I am also homeless and run the San Diego Homeless Survival Guide.
Maybe you should check profiles before saying ugly things like "you need to get out more and see how people really live."
http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html
Maybe you should check profiles before saying ugly things like "you need to get out more and see how people really live."
http://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html
Can you explain more about how a basic income must be regressive?
Like what if it is implemented as a negative income tax?
Would a sub-basic income of $5 (implemented as a negative income tax) be regressive?
Like what if it is implemented as a negative income tax?
Would a sub-basic income of $5 (implemented as a negative income tax) be regressive?
I think that's a fair response. Allowing unions isn't really philanthropy, but it's certainly related. He wouldn't have so much money to be "generous" with if all Amazon employees were treated fairly.
Well, it's giving something... In any case, workers' wages have been stagnant, jobs have been lost to automation, wealth has been pooling up at the top. Things would probably be better off if Amazon's employees had had more of a share in the wealth that was created and he wasn't in such a position.
I don't really think Unions are the solution to this problem, but it is a real, and important, problem to solve.
I don't really think Unions are the solution to this problem, but it is a real, and important, problem to solve.
Because ideas are free, here is one: as Bezos, I would like to know what things I could do to improve the world, both with my time or with my money; I would like some kind of social platform where I could learn about issues, propose solutions, and make them happen. In other words, a massive issue-tracker for the outside world.
"People are starving in Somalia"
"I think there's already a JIRA for that one."
"I think there's already a JIRA for that one."
Oh I hope that with some good moderation it could get much better than that...
"People are starving in Somalia" is as useful as "people around the world are suffering", or (like in many software projects): "this program is too slow".
But if you can narrow the scope, like, "There is a neighborhood in Baidoa, Somalia, that have no access to fresh water since the beginning of June because a pump is broken" then we could think of possible ways to solve that. And if you also include information about organizations in that area that could help, then we are much closer to a real solution.
"People are starving in Somalia" is as useful as "people around the world are suffering", or (like in many software projects): "this program is too slow".
But if you can narrow the scope, like, "There is a neighborhood in Baidoa, Somalia, that have no access to fresh water since the beginning of June because a pump is broken" then we could think of possible ways to solve that. And if you also include information about organizations in that area that could help, then we are much closer to a real solution.
"People are starving in Somalia" is actually relatively fixable. "Somalia was one of four regions singled out by the UN secretary-general in February for a £3.6 billion aid appeal"[0]. Just cut £3.6bn from the world's trillion dollar military budgets. Maybe a general principle could be made that no money is to go for bombs until people have food.
[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/somalia-dead-...
[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/somalia-dead-...
Kiva is kind of like that!
Edit: not Python
Edit: not Python
What is Kivy? the only reference I found is about some python framework
The Effective Altruism community is a group of a few thousand people that have been attempting to do this for the last few years. Organizations like GiveWell.org (giving money) or 80000hours.org (giving time) have proved immensely helpful in my career and donation life choices.
Feels gimmicky. How is he planning to parse through millions of responses? Instead talk to leading non profits and get their advice or perhaps just help fund them instead of creating a new one. World does not need a new charity organization. Just help the ones that are finding it hard to raise money.
If I were Bezos, I would fund Elon Musk so Elon can solve as many problems as possible without worrying about investors.
If I were Bezos, I would fund Elon Musk so Elon can solve as many problems as possible without worrying about investors.
> How is he planning to parse through millions of responses?
https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
Seriously though, it's going to be thousands of responses, not millions. Get 2-3 people for a day and the ideas can be collated into themes, then reported on, easily.
https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
Seriously though, it's going to be thousands of responses, not millions. Get 2-3 people for a day and the ideas can be collated into themes, then reported on, easily.
A little more than five hours after his request, there were more than 3,600 such replies
It seems to be thousands, not millions, and I am sure he has a secretary or -- the new PC term -- administrative assistant.
It seems to be thousands, not millions, and I am sure he has a secretary or -- the new PC term -- administrative assistant.
They'll do a word cloud and then do what? Is he is really going to act on these ideas without looking at real data on poverty, education, climate change, etc?
Alexa?
Looks like my point is proved because he just announced Whole Foods acquisition. His tweet was a diversion to soften the blow from today's announcement.
Link to request for ideas: https://www.twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/875418348598603776
Philanthropy has a net benefit to the world if it can re-allocate labor, capital allocated to unproductive activities to activities which are perceived to improve the human experience.
If the philanthropy is spent on re-allocating labor, capital allocated to existing productive activities (e.g. rice farming, bridge maintenance), to activities which are perceived to improve the human experience, there's a big chance it would cause harm to society instead.
If the philanthropy is spent on re-allocating labor, capital allocated to existing productive activities (e.g. rice farming, bridge maintenance), to activities which are perceived to improve the human experience, there's a big chance it would cause harm to society instead.
Give me 10k, and I'll refinance my mortgage, to remove the PMI I'm currently paying, and then spend an additional $150 per month on Amazon.
Having a PMI means you're living beyond your means already.
Not necessarily. You don't have enough information to make that claim.
If you're smart and have assets (not living on the edge), then you put as little down as possible because your return will be higher than the PMI or general debt service.
As an example: I bought an investment property about 2 years ago with 10% down and was able to do it because I took a HELOC with a higher rate.
I could have put way more down but my goal was cash on cash return. The higher rate for the HELOC is kind of like having PMI. The rate can adjust upwards too.
The property does 80K/yr and cash flows. After I bought it I used cash to do some upgrades. I refinanced a year later (low fixed mortgage, no more HELOC) and they did a new appraisal at that time. It has ~22% equity now.
I just put an offer out to buy a second property. 10% down again and I'll put cash in to get it ready to rent.
I was approved for the first property as a second home actually so I can afford it with no income. Now that it has income, I got approved for another home.
Point is - leverage is a great idea if you know what you're doing. Don't fear the PMI; there's plenty of ways to beat it. Example: you can do state muni bond funds with the preserved cash - it's tax free income if you buy funds from your state and it's easy to get out if you need the cash back for anything.
If you're smart and have assets (not living on the edge), then you put as little down as possible because your return will be higher than the PMI or general debt service.
As an example: I bought an investment property about 2 years ago with 10% down and was able to do it because I took a HELOC with a higher rate.
I could have put way more down but my goal was cash on cash return. The higher rate for the HELOC is kind of like having PMI. The rate can adjust upwards too.
The property does 80K/yr and cash flows. After I bought it I used cash to do some upgrades. I refinanced a year later (low fixed mortgage, no more HELOC) and they did a new appraisal at that time. It has ~22% equity now.
I just put an offer out to buy a second property. 10% down again and I'll put cash in to get it ready to rent.
I was approved for the first property as a second home actually so I can afford it with no income. Now that it has income, I got approved for another home.
Point is - leverage is a great idea if you know what you're doing. Don't fear the PMI; there's plenty of ways to beat it. Example: you can do state muni bond funds with the preserved cash - it's tax free income if you buy funds from your state and it's easy to get out if you need the cash back for anything.
Instead of downvoting, I will just say, there are absolutely situations where a down payment of less than 20% is perfectly financially reasonable. Interest rates are extremely low.
There's virtually no way for a 20-something to amass a 20% down-payment in a reasonable area, without postponing home ownership into the mid-30s.
Establish an Endowment whose goal would be to re-train people who are looking to get trained with in-demand skills to off-set the dislocation of labor due to the disruption our workforce will experience due to automation. Teach old dogs new skills/vocations.
This! With the reduction in workforce caused by increased automation or robots, there is going to be a large number of people who will be out of work. If there is a way of training them with newer skills and making them productive, that would alleviate (to some extent) the social disruption.
Use your power to help get universal health care insurance/coverage.
Hell, all the contract, part time, whatever workers at your warehouses sure could use it.
Right here, right now, I'm not even talking about wage levels and all the rest.
Just help ensure that people, regardless of their standing in life, can stay basically healthy. In the U.S.
Bigger goal: Around the world.
THAT would be a worthwhile goal, and legacy.
Hell, all the contract, part time, whatever workers at your warehouses sure could use it.
Right here, right now, I'm not even talking about wage levels and all the rest.
Just help ensure that people, regardless of their standing in life, can stay basically healthy. In the U.S.
Bigger goal: Around the world.
THAT would be a worthwhile goal, and legacy.
Give money to people. Let them decide. Hell, have a giant crowdfunding voting platform. Philanthro-capitalism is the absolute worst way to distribute resources. One unfathomably wealthy person is not positioned in any way to rationally or appropriately distribute resources for humanitarian concerns.
Why do you think that? http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do seems to be doing just that and has pretty good results.
After destroying the Seattle education system first. Then after realizing issues are more complicated than he originally imagined (and local issues reflecting poorly on him) going to foreign countries to experiment with dispersing his tax breaks.
Not exactly a stunning endorsement. Basically the least bad example.
Not exactly a stunning endorsement. Basically the least bad example.
Things like trying to wipe out malaria seem quite sensible. If instead you gave the few billion to people as $1 each it would be hard to achieve the same effect.
They say the best ideas can come from anyone and anywhere, I guess why not Twitter? Probably not most of our first choice but hey, theoretically something good could come up.
It's a great medium - Brian Chesky did the same thing for Airbnb ideas and got over 2200 replies: https://twitter.com/bchesky/status/813219932087390208
Instead of a homeless shelter, how about more actual affordable housing? So people can get out of the shelters and off the streets.
How does that differ from HUD?
In North St Louis they tore down the projects that were hud and forced families to move to North St Louis county aka Spanish Lake and Ferguson etc and built HUD apartments there.
Maybe what you want is basic income to live on and afford housing and food, etc?
In North St Louis they tore down the projects that were hud and forced families to move to North St Louis county aka Spanish Lake and Ferguson etc and built HUD apartments there.
Maybe what you want is basic income to live on and afford housing and food, etc?
I am not pro basic income.
https://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html
https://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/ir2.html
I easily find affordable housing in and around Seattle via Zillow. What are you expecting exactly that's not already out there?
I am not in the Seattle area. From what I have read, there is a long standing and growing shortage of genuinely affordable housing nationwide.
Though I am curious as to what you think of as "affordable" in Seattle. Care to provide some examples?
Though I am curious as to what you think of as "affordable" in Seattle. Care to provide some examples?
You can find plenty of examples on Zillow.com and craigslist. What would you consider affordable with a 15$/hour minimum wage?
Bezos is being very logical as usual. He's about to be pinned with the title of world's richest person (assuming the stock market isn't about to deflate of course), and all the negative press that goes with it. Such as the optics of world's richest person vs pay & work conditions of Amazon's poorest workers, the headlines will never end unless he starts pouring a billion per year into philanthropy.
Fusion.
Too many people think about themselves, and not about the bigger picture.
There's a lot of people saying "Give me $5000" Or
"Why don't you teach me to be rich?!"
I truly hope he chooses something to change the world for the better.
I truly hope he chooses something to change the world for the better.
He could do worse than just giving all his money to Bill Gates. Actually, he already has done much worse, by purchasing a major newspaper that formerly occasionally published articles written in the public interest, only to turn it into the official press organ of the "intelligence" TLAs. Viewed in a certain light, of course, that wasn't so much philanthropy as CODB.
[deleted]
https://twitter.com/DemSocialists/status/875511888049778688