“The mine owners did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belonged to them!” - Big Bill Haywood, 1929
They convinced investors to buy into the mining company, they bought the land, they paid the prospector, they bought the mining equipment, they paid the miners
The gold paid them back.
How else could it work?
Edit. Interesting that no one has an answer on how else it could work… For example, in Bolivia there are mining cooperatives, but they still use all the tools of capitalism to extract the gold, and the co-op members are no different to investors really. The hours worked and conditions are no different. Mining is hard and dangerous.
They bought the land? They paid the miners?? Mining has a history of forcing native people out of their lands through threats or worse killing people, making slaves out of poor people and forcing them into 12+ hours shifts in horrible and unsafe conditions.
And you’re using the products that result from that mining, so you’re just as culpable
No demand, no mining.
We should improve society somewhat.
But do we really want to pay the price for others getting it better?
I’m not saying that’s how I want it to be but unfortunately his point in the end it’s depressingly accurate…
It’s been improving for 10,000 years. We’re good.
YoU bOuGhT aN iPhOnE sO yOu CaNt CrItIcIzE cApItAlIsM
Pretty sure mining is done under all political systems.
What alternative do you suggest for making things?
bUt He cReAtEs tHe JeRbS!
They aren’t greedy! They’re exercising rational self-interest!
They aren’t cruel! They’re acting in the best interests of shareholders!
They don’t sociopathically betray the workers who helped them succeed, they curtailed redundancies to maximize workplace efficiency!
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Oh, so you are ok with genocide. Dam commy.
XDDDDDDDD what
Theyre an anarchist communist stalanist genocidist. You can smell it on em.
Just don’t call me a capitalist or I might get offended.
Get em boys!
This is the problem with capitalism. The workers do all the work, but the “owning” class keeps all the rewards of all that work.
I don’t agree with the size of the wealth gap between owner and regular employee, but I don’t understand why people think the heads of these companies - and I’m talking the ones that started them from nothing - did no work or continue to do no work. It’s pretty ludicrous to think that the low level employees at Amazon are doing “all the work.” Are they doing all the grunt work? Yes. Is their job the most physically demanding? Yes. Are they underpaid? Yes. But to pretend like the owner does nothing is just so idiotic and shows a lack of understanding of what goes into running a massive organization like amazon.
There definitely needs to be reform. I don’t even think taxation is the way to go, I think putting laws in place for higher wages is key.
Yes, bootlicker. Totally right… But in actual reality: What are you talking about!?
I’ve met and worked with C Suite, Executive, and Officer-level employees… They do as little as you think they do. Unless they’re a results-focused executive trying to turn around a failing business, their impact is… very little, in fact. Yet they make 100+ times what you or I make, every single year. It’s not fair, it’s not logical, yet it is one thing: corruption.
There’s a very high difference between the people you’re listing and someone who runs a company from the ground up. There’s definitely corruption, we can agree on that, and yes, too many executive positions held by MBA grads who have never done anything but be an executive.
quiet shill
deleted by creator
That’s not a dog…it’s a raccoon! Oh my god, look at that raccoon wearing a hat!
deleted by creator
Come on now, that’s not fair!
I, for one, think we should show our appreciation for Bezos being a titan of capitalist virtue by crowdfunding an experience he’ll never forget, a deep sea excursion into the depths to view the wreckage of the storied Titanic!
Who’s with me?!
Titan 2: Bezos Boogaloo
You forgot one additional picture, “we, together, allow this madness to exist”.
Money has too much power
More like: “we are too gready to prevent this disaster from re-occuring…”.
The amount of corporate bootlicking in this thread/meme is simply astounding.
You can look at civilization throughout history and see that the ones that lasted the longest cared about the individual rights of every citizen. When you allow a certain class to violate individual rights you end in revolution.
If they can even get there. At this point there’s so much money poured into vitriol and smear campaigns, divisive propaganda to keep everyone off the same page, hell, even people getting murdered or imprisoned just for trying to do what they can to get their voice out on a public platform and improve their countries… I hope the revolution actually happens, but it seems like it’ll take some grand feat of coordination…
I want to have a serious conversation on this if possible. As devil’s advocate, if I want to start a business that helps people, what would I have to do to not run afoul and garner this type of criticism? Are you indicating that I must relinquish my business once it gets too big and that I am only entitled to a certain amount of success? Are you indicating that I must pay my workers far beyond what the free market dictates they are worth? Trying to understand how those are my issues. It would seem to me that these would need to change with far reaching government policies. Those policies in many ways go against capitalist principles when you start to consider having to pay a janitor for a company hundreds of thousands of dollars if the company is successful and employees are paid in revenue share. That makes far less sense than the owner of the company reaping the benefit of their innovation. I would also argue that an entrepreneur will potentially use these earnings more interestingly than a janitor, potentially to start additional businesses that help the public by increasing offerings and jobs.
I don’t really have a direct reply to these ideas but I would like to point out an interesting example of a business model that addresses some of these concerns, that is the worker cooperative, where the workers have some portion of ownership of the company, either in revenue sharing or decision making.
Worker coops are wildly underappreciated. I’m a big fan of “workers’ right to first refusal”. If a business owner is selling, the workers have a given amount of time to match that offer and buy it themselves.
My take? The issue I have with the mega rich is that they (generalization here) aren’t playing by the same rules as you or I. I don’t have an issue, with not paying all of your employees 6 figures. Different jobs, skills, training, and capabilities are (and should be) worth different amounts of money. It’s important that people with good ideas, or business capabilities have avenues of expanding, bettering themselves, and enjoying the fruits of their labor.
When you pay money to write rules that are favorable to you, you become the problem. Money in politics is the problem. Imo, that has enabled all of this. Don’t have good healthcare? Likely it was lobbied for because someone wanted more money. Stuck in prison? Oh yeah, money in politics got you there. Minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation? Something, something trickledown-bullshit, money in politics. Kids killed in school constantly? Oh you know…FUCKING MONEY IN POLITICS.
Favorable can be lobbying against health & safety or environmental regulations because it impacts your bottom line. It is donating to political campaigns for tax cuts (you know, fucking bribery). It’s blocking minimum wage hikes to secure your bottom line.
All of that said, how people sleep at night with absurd amounts of money and minimal charity is disgusting. I don’t fault someone for enjoying an oppulant lifestyle…I do fault someone for Scrooge McDucking and hoarding cash…for what? Bragging rights? Power?
TLDR: be gaddamn ethical about it.
This is a fair take.
Those philosophies are not the only way to do things. Workers don’t have to be paid the minimum possible. At some point, wealth accumulation becomes so extreme that it’s immoral, like when people have so much money that they could never possibly spend it and are spending $300 million on a new boat or whatever. Tax rates used to be much, much higher on wealthy people and they still were “reaping the benefit of their innovation”. Even better than paying taxes would be giving the money to employees. Paying a janitor (not sure why that is your example of someone who is lesser) enough money to buy a house and pay for their children to go to college is not a waste. It’s also how the economy works. Capitalists and the wealthy class in the US seem to think they can keep all the money and economically starve their employees without realizing that the public has to have enough money to buy their products.
workers don’t have to be paid the minimum possible
Ideally, the market dictates salary in capitalism. This means that a worker can shop themselves around if you are not paying them enough. Where this has broken down a bit is in corporations intentionally and unintentionally colluding on appropriate pay for positions across an industry. The get consulting groups to indicate whether they are in line with industry practices. This can also result in employees getting pay bumps if a company has is having trouble retaining talent. If the government tries to break the organic model by imposing minimum pay rules, then it will hurt small businesses. If it creates a percentage system based upon company profits then you end up having your talent retire early. It is not really a tenable model to keep a business afloat. You would end up with these companies that exist and then go away because the employees have extracted all the wealth they need, so you wouldn’t have prolonged enterprises like Amazon that offer an extremely useful service because their wild success means that it becomes impossible to figure out how to hire people to new positions because the revenue share for one employee would far exceed what other companies could offer, so you have to somehow either find the best person ever for that position or some kind of hereditary system forms. The use-case doesn’t make much sense. If you simply cap the CEO’s salary and say that they are not allowed to make many multiples of standard employees and standard employees cannot make many multiples above the standards for their roles in the industry then maybe that would work, but it seems like an overreach of government.
If I need to pay my employees more because my company is more profitable, then the government is basically telling me that my cost of labor is far more expensive than my smaller competitors. It will result in only small new companies being able to invest in innovation at a large risk and big companies not having the capital to invest in the kind of research and development that only a large venture can do. Amazon spends ~$43B on R&D. If they had to pay tons more to employees, we wouldn’t have things like their streaming devices, content offerings, or warehouse and logistics improvements that allow for packages to arrive same or next day.
If you’re paying your employees what they’re worth (not the minimum the market will bear, but actually in line with the value they contribute), and you’re still making Bezos money, then you’re fleecing your customers.
There’s no way to get to a billion dollars without 1) exploiting your labor and supply chain by taking advantage of capitalist forces to pay less than the value of their contribution or 2) exploiting your customers by taking advantage of capitalist forces to charge more than the value of your product. Usually both, to extreme degrees, enabled by monopolies, regulatory capture, collusion, and other capitalist tricks. That’s not “a business that helps people”.
No matter how “innovative” an entrepreneur is, the actual value of their product or service is generated by the people who actually do the work. Of course, you’re entitled to the value that you personally create, but the best business idea in the world is worth exactly zilch without implementation. Bezos doesn’t build those fulfillment centers, he doesn’t manufacture the products, he doesn’t pack the boxes, he doesn’t drive the trucks, he doesn’t program the website. He only has the wealth he does because he pays the people that generate the value of his company the absolute minimum that he can get away with, skimming a big slice of everyone’s labor value for himself. That doesn’t help the public.
You don’t give him enough credit. He worked extremely hard to make Amazon what it is today. Additionally, he took major risks to his credit where he convinced investors to fund a new form of supply chain. He is reaping the reward of taking entrepreneurial risks and creating something innovative. I don’t know how you can say that Amazon doesn’t help people. Their prices are in-line with the market and no one can touch their shipping costs. Their warehouse jobs are demanding, but they explain that to anyone getting into it. In time, the people will mostly be replaced by robots anyways. The employees want more money, but robots work for free. If anything, we should be very interested in potentially implementing UBI and a VAT on automation per Andrew Yang.
He did not work multiple billions of dollars hard. No one can possibly work multiple billions of dollars hard. Bezos is worth 157 billion, and he’s 59 years old, which averages to over $10 million per day since he was 18. Are you seriously suggesting that he has done 100 times more work, every single day of his life, than someone making $100,000 does in a whole year? Sure, he had some good ideas, and deserves to be fairly compensated, but that’s monstrously out of proportion.
Capitalism does not, and has never, fundamentally rewarded hard work. Capitalism, fundamentally, rewards having a bunch of money to buy the rights to the value of the hard work of others. The most reliable way to get rich in capitalism isn’t even to have great business ideas, it’s to be born with rich parents so you can buy lots of shares in a company, and then use your shares to demand the company prioritize maximum dividends and minimum employee compensation. The investors that actually contribute meaningful ideas are a coincidential minority at best.
Sure, UBI and VAT are valuable ideas, but the main problem is that the robots will be owned by rich investors who made their money by being born rich enough to throw money at ventures that made them richer.
The actual solution is vesting the employees who actually create value with shares of the means of production they use to create that value. When the workers are the shareholders, they are actually compensated for their hard work, and the problem solves itself.
Bezos is never going to reach out grab your hand and pull you up to sit beside him, the only result of you licking his boot so hard is a sore tongue, though ideally you’d choke, and stop enabling this hell for the rest of who don’t actually get off on being exploited (nor on the fantasy of exploiting others)
He is being defended indirectly. I am defending capitalism. Sure we can make some reforms to improve salaries across industries, but the ultra wealthy serve a purpose too. People are claiming that they sit on their money, but they clearly do reinvest in new entrepreneurial ventures. The more wealthy, the more groundbreaking. It is great that Bezos invested in civilian space tourism. That will only strengthen innovation in the space sector, which is needed. The US space program results in many innovations that we use across other industries today. Elon is revolutionizing tunnel digging and maybe rail transport. Bill Gates is either trying to stave the spread of disease or working on thinning the population depending upon the content you read.
If your net worth breaks a billion dollars, you will garner this sort of criticism nearly no matter what you do with it. Bill Gates, at least recently, has been just about as close as you can be to a model philanthropist, and people still spit on his name regularly.
A few things that help though, would be A) paying workers higher than the federally mandated minimum amount that you can legally pay them without running afoul of labor laws, B) Reinvesting profit back into the company instead of paying yourself a gorillion dollar yearly bonus while the rest of the employees get a 2.5% cost of living raise, and C) donating to charitable causes or human rights groups.
But some CEO’s (I won’t say many, but definitely some) do all of these things and still come under public fire. Realistically, if you actually manage to hoard enough money to become a billionaire, you’ve already abandoned your morals. No human being needs that much money. By all means profit from your innovations and rake in enough to live a comfortable life off them, but when your take home pay for a month is 12x what your next best paid employee makes in a year, you’re a motherfucker. Doubly so, when said employee is the one with boots on the ground and all the CEO is doing is signing papers and looking pretty for the shareholders.
In my opinion, there should never, ever ever, be a discrepancy of more than 5x the amount your lowest paid employee makes. If you’re paying people 25k a year to do the work that runs your business, the guy at the top of the chain of command shouldn’t make more than 125k. If you pay your guys 100k a year, sure, take home 500k a year if you’ve got the profits. Live comfortably. But when a company makes record breaking profits, turns around and cans half their staff, then pays the bigwigs a million dollar bonus while everyone else gets next to nothing, yeah, fuck you, fuck your product, and fuck your shareholders. If you look around there’s been quite a lot of that going on recently.
I guess my point is, the act of dishonestly hoarding the money in the first place is what makes us hate the rich. If you made that money fair and square and you deserve it, man, more power to you. I don’t think anyone is upset with Dolly Parton even though she’s worth an estimated 650 million US dollars, because she sweat and bled for that money and hasn’t taken to lording it over everyone else just because she can. Bezos invented a website and then rode it’s coattails into the realm of the obscenely rich without hardly ever lifting another finger for it. So did Musk. And the better-than-thou attitude they get about it makes it so much worse.
Not all the rich are bad people, but for the most part, good people don’t become rich. Not like that. It takes a certain amount of gleefully taking advantage of your fellow humans to get there. That remorseless exploitation is what we hate.
Bezos invented a website
He modernized e-commerce logistics through taking a huge risk of setting up last-mile regional warehouses at significant cost then moved from books to everything. He created sophisticated business processes that accounted for demand and seasonality, then had the foresight to take his logistics software platform and even package its components as a service.
This is an easy question to answer. Look at Henry Ford and look at Bezos and his type (oh for example Walmart, etc). Ford wanted his workers to be able to afford the product he was making, and he even lost a landmark case because he was looking out for the best interest of his employees and his customers, from wikipedia:
Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919)[1] is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a manner for the benefit of his employees or customers. It is often taught as affirming the principle of “shareholder primacy” in corporate America, although that teaching has received some criticism
I don’t think there is a simple answer to this question. Not bribing politicians for favours, not exploiting workers and not selling substandard goods might be considered a basic minimum. Beyond this, there have been businessmen who tried to help their employees (or society as a whole), such as Ernst Abbe of Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung and John Spedan Lewis of JLP / Waitrose.
WTF did I just read?
UPS pays good though.
Their pay is less bad. Not exactly good
Depends on the position! Last contract adjustment really helps the part-timers rise above poverty wages. Has yet to be ratified but it looks promising.
Doesn’t pay $142,667/ Minute
It’s good until you pay off the union that doesn’t provide until you’ve been a member for a number of years
Things may have changed, but I noped out of the package handlers Union back in the 00’s when I was offered a shitty job at UPS because it looked like the pay was going to be shit until I’d suffered for years, then it’s be slightly less shit.
/please correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to spread misinformation, just want to share how shit the union system can be unchecked.
Look at all the pathetic and deluded temporarily embarrassed millionaire you’ve coaxed out of their holes to publicly humiliate themselves and lick some boot like it’s going out of fashion…
Not the nausea inducing content I was properad to consume before breakfast 🤮
And it’s never enough
Buy local when you can, if you have to order a chinese made products (most are these days) buy from Aliexpress, you save a ton of money not paying amazon markup or a 3rd party Chinese seller running business on Amazon.
deleted by creator
I totally agree with that, the issue these days is even the good products are chinese made. And things like computer parts; you don’t have an western part manufacturer. An example Dell adapter cable on Amazon $24, exact product direct from China $3 free shipping
There’s quite a few well made Chinese products nowadays, especially in certain niche tech hobbies.
I bed the creator of the meme is using Amazon frequently and doesn’t give a dime about the people there.
deleted by creator
Maybe meme creators are just hypocrites and grave for likes?
Removed by mod
