Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Snow on Wednesday January 09 2019, @09:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the prenups-are-very-high-IQ dept.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jeff-bezos-amazon-ceo-worth-137-billion-to-divorce-wife-of-25-years

"Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie are divorcing after 25 years of marriage, the Amazon CEO and Washington Post owner has announced, potentially leading to the costliest divorce settlement in history with $137 billion at stake."

The richest man in the world, currently worth about $137 billion, according to Bloomberg, made the divorce announcement on Wednesday on his Twitter.

[...]The split could lead [to] the costliest divorce is[sic] history, even if the couple doesn’t divide the money equally. There are no reports indicating the couple has a prenuptial agreement, meaning the wealth accumulated during their marriage would have to be split evenly.

Also covered by CBC, CNN, and CNBC among other news outlets.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by istartedi on Wednesday January 09 2019, @09:39PM (43 children)

    by istartedi (123) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @09:39PM (#784288) Journal

    "I'm down to my last $68.5 billion, whatever am I to do? Whoah is me." Costliest divorce in history, and smallest violin.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Funny=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:04PM (31 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:04PM (#784298)

    All that hard-earned money just tossed away... I'd be a lot more sympathetic if he had actually done anything to earn most of it, rather than just playing monopoly with other people's money while screwing over his employees.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:14PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:14PM (#784302)

      Fun fact: If he got divrced in France, he'd have to pay a divorce tax of 2.5% of the assets to the country.
      That'd be about 3.5 billion dollars, not too bad for a few forms.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @12:17AM (29 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @12:17AM (#784356)

      You've obviously never actually seen Jeff Bezos at work and in action. He's one of the most intelligent, involved and hard working people on the planet. He's not like everyone else.

      And, he's a asshole who treats his people like crap. But, never assume he isn't extremely bright and very hard working.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:06AM (28 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:06AM (#784380)

        I'm sure he is.

        I'm also sure none of the work he's done is worth ~$290,000/hour every hour, for all of his 54 years of life. No work anyone has ever done is worth anywhere close to that, with the possible exception of some truly transformational work done by our greatest thinkers - most of whom were never paid that much in an entire year. It's simply not possible to *earn* that kind of money, you can only accumulate it through financial machinations.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:40AM (10 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:40AM (#784441) Journal

          As I learned very practically the first time I bought and then sold a house, something is worth precisely what someone else is willing to pay for it. People pay huge sums of money for ludicrous things all the time.

          Point is: Bezos gets others to pay him that money voluntarily. They may not think about it like that, but if you buy from Amazon, you are indirectly contributing X cents to Bezos's paycheck. Millions and millions of people willingly doing that are seemingly fine with the fact he is accumulating that wealth.

          Does it mean his work is "worth" such ridiculous sum in some abstract sense? I certainly don't think so. But the market is willing to pay it. People are willing to work at his company knowing his share of profits. Everyone who does business with Amazon is tacitly approving of his distribution of wealth.

          Now, whether it's just and fair for him to keep it -- that's a philosophical question that has been debated for a long time. But he "earned" his money in the same way that slapping a new coat of paint on my house and a few other minor things probably increased my selling price by 20x the cost of material and labor for those minor improvements. Did I "earn" that money? Or was some stupid schmuck who toured my house willing to work over a lot more because it looked superficially a little prettier?

          If you do business with Amazon, you are contributing to his earnings. Discussions of whether he or his work are "worth" it are pointless -- just like whether $200 worth of paint is "worth" $5000 in the price of a house... It's all what someone is willing to pay.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @04:08AM (8 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @04:08AM (#784456)

            You are confusing price with worth, a common mistake. Which is worth more - diamonds or water? Diamonds are obviously priced higher, but which would you really rather give up for a month?

            And that is the difference between earning money - generating real wealth through your personal actions, minus whatever net wealth is kept by your customer/employer as their incentive to trade.

            And accumulating money because you're good at playing the game we call "our economic system"

            There's nothing sacred about such a system, it's just a tool society has created to promote the generation and distribution of wealth - and when the discrepancy between earned and accumulated wealth becomes too great, then society is probably best advised to take a good hard look at the system, because the incentive structure is no longer actually prioritizing the generation of wealth, and social decay is on the horizon.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:09PM (6 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:09PM (#784480) Journal

              There's nothing sacred about such a system

              It just works. That's all.

              and when the discrepancy between earned and accumulated wealth becomes too great, then society is probably best advised to take a good hard look at the system

              What's "too great" about said wealth discrepancy? What is even the difference between earned and accumulated wealth? Why would a "hard look" do anything productive - is there anything better out there?

              I see the same envious concerns brought up over and over again. Surely, you should first show that there is a problem worthy of such concern. Second, you should show that you have something resembling a solution, if you're going to advocating taking stuff away from someone because of that problem.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:48PM (5 children)

                by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:48PM (#784503)

                >It just works. That's all.

                So does socialism, communism, and gift economies. The question is only how effective are they at promoting wealth generation, and how effective are they at distributing that wealth equitably. Capitalism seems to be the most successful system yet developed for generating wealth, but it consistently fails badly at distributing it equitably over the long term.

                >What's "too great" about said wealth discrepancy?
                Well, when wealth inequality is increasing faster than wealth, so that hard-working segments of society are actually losing wealth despite increasing productivity, there's probably a problem (which is currently happening in the U.S., as a large segment of the society is now looking at being less wealthy than their parents, despite a steadily increasing GDP)

                > What is even the difference between earned and accumulated wealth?
                I already explained that - earned wealth is wealth that you *personally* generate. The craftsman produces wealth with every new widget he builds (or field he tills, or haircut he provides). The merchant generates wealth by connecting craftsmen with customers. The manager generates wealth by managing the logistics so that the craftsman can focus on his craft. The investor gambles by providing capital for others to grow their business. But the craftsman is the origin of most wealth, all others only expedite the process. When managers and investors then demand the lion's share of that wealth for themselves, there is a problem.

                > Second, you should show that you have something resembling a solution, if you're going to advocating taking stuff away from someone because of that problem.
                So drawing attention to a problem isn't an important first stop to solving it?

                I'm also not necessarily advocating taking anything away from anyone - stopping people from taking substantially more wealth than they generate works even better. But those taking the wealth have spent a great deal of time, effort, and power crafting an economic system that favors their parasitic behavior. And convincing people such as yourself that it's an inherently wonderful system worth defending against any questioning. That makes at least taxing them so that we can reclaim some of our wealth to support the social infrastructure a much simpler band-aid solution to implement. Doesn't actually solve the problem, but at least it eases the weight of the yoke around our necks while we look for something better.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @04:20AM (4 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @04:20AM (#784884) Journal

                  So does socialism, communism, and gift economies.

                  Where's the evidence to support that assertion?

                  The question is only how effective are they at promoting wealth generation, and how effective are they at distributing that wealth equitably.

                  The answer is "quite shitty".

                  Capitalism seems to be the most successful system yet developed for generating wealth, but it consistently fails badly at distributing it equitably over the long term.

                  Why again is that something we want to do? Take money away from people who create Amazons, then you have less Amazons.

                  when wealth inequality is increasing faster than wealth

                  That's not even a thing. First, most of the world isn't even trying to accumulate wealth, even in the developed world where it is pretty easy to do. So right there, we have a huge part we can outright ignore because they don't care enough to do it on their own. Then most of the wealth is of a form that isn't very valuable. Can't feed someone on credit default swaps. So most people aren't even playing and most of the wealth isn't that valuable. Yet we're supposed to care about this alleged situation? Meh.

                  > What is even the difference between earned and accumulated wealth?

                  I already explained that - earned wealth is wealth that you *personally* generate. The craftsman produces wealth with every new widget he builds (or field he tills, or haircut he provides). The merchant generates wealth by connecting craftsmen with customers. The manager generates wealth by managing the logistics so that the craftsman can focus on his craft. The investor gambles by providing capital for others to grow their business. But the craftsman is the origin of most wealth, all others only expedite the process. When managers and investors then demand the lion's share of that wealth for themselves, there is a problem.

                  There's still a lot of overlap between the two, particularly if one invests what one earns.

                  > Second, you should show that you have something resembling a solution, if you're going to advocating taking stuff away from someone because of that problem.

                  So drawing attention to a problem isn't an important first stop to solving it?

                  Only if we have a way to solve that problem. Here, when most of humanity don't even try to save wealth, then it's already a lost cause. You can draw all the attention you want, implement all the solutions you want, and yet not get anywhere because people have and will use their choices and power to thwart your intentions. Give them wealth, and they'll just spend it. It's even baked into most universal basic income plans (usually combined with some goal of increasing economic activity via the spending).

                  Second, there is this conceit that if some system doesn't perfectly eliminate a problem, then somewhere out there is a better system. Too often, people use minor problems with capitalism to justify throwing out or sabotaging the whole system, and then replacing it with a worse system. A classic example are the money haters. They've decided money is bad, so they have come up with bizarre systems to eliminate that supposed evil while completely ignoring the cluster that would result when money is crippled or eliminated.

                  Finally, there's the conceit of considering a problem in a vacuum. Wealth inequality is far from the only problem that humanity has - so why is it the only problem considered? For many of the rest of those big problems, capitalism does a really good job of making things better. So rather than optimize for some minor issue, why shouldn't we instead look at the big stuff? Reducing wealth inequality doesn't solve poverty, for example. What's missed is that most of the tools which reduce wealth inequality also reduce wealth altogether. Bezos being worth hundreds of billions of dollars doesn't hurt my ability to care for myself. But wealth equalizing proposals that destroy that wealth (and kill a bunch of jobs in the process) will hurt my ability to care for myself.

                  I'm also not necessarily advocating taking anything away from anyone - stopping people from taking substantially more wealth than they generate works even better. But those taking the wealth have spent a great deal of time, effort, and power crafting an economic system that favors their parasitic behavior. And convincing people such as yourself that it's an inherently wonderful system worth defending against any questioning. That makes at least taxing them so that we can reclaim some of our wealth to support the social infrastructure a much simpler band-aid solution to implement. Doesn't actually solve the problem, but at least it eases the weight of the yoke around our necks while we look for something better.

                  You don't have a clue how much wealth Bezos generates. My view, of course, is that his compensation is well in line for what he did in the past and does in the present. I think people are very ignorant about what is actually parasitism and there's a lot of propaganda (almost two centuries worth just from Communism) out there to keep their heads in the sand. "Taxing them" is taking away from them BTW.

                  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 11 2019, @04:56AM (3 children)

                    by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 11 2019, @04:56AM (#784895)

                    >Take money away from people who create Amazons, then you have less Amazons.
                    Where's your evidence for that? Amazon was created by a guy with an idea who put in some hard work. If he had only personally made one billion dollars in assets off it instead of 137 billion, would he really have been much less motivated? You really think it has anything to do with the money at that point?

                    >Too often, people use minor problems with capitalism to justify throwing out or sabotaging the whole system, and then replacing it with a worse system.
                    I quite agree, and I think that capitalism has a lot to offer, but it also has some major flaws that we need to figure out how to address. And there is *always* something better. No tool made by man has ever been perfect, there's always room for improvement, though it's not always obvious, and sometimes other seemingly unrelated technologies need to be developed first.

                    The solution might even come from another direction entirely - for example, what it we left capitalism completely intact, but eliminated inheritance(including substantial gifts) so that genuine skill and merit would be the largest factor in your success, rather than the dynasty of inter-generational wealth transfer? "Spend it or lose it" would also stimulate a whole lot of economic activity that would be good for everyone, and a healthy society would be the largest gift the ultra-rich could give their children, since they can't pass on enough wealth to not care.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @05:09AM (2 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @05:09AM (#784900) Journal

                      If he had only personally made one billion dollars in assets off it instead of 137 billion, would he really have been much less motivated?

                      The obvious rebuttal is how is he going to employ half a million people, if government took away that money? A business is not a static thing, hiring comes from the profits the business generates not only directly but via loans. And Blue Origin wouldn't be a thing, if he had to give his earnings to the feds to squander.

                      The solution might even come from another direction entirely - for example, what it we left capitalism completely intact, but eliminated inheritance(including substantial gifts) so that genuine skill and merit would be the largest factor in your success, rather than the dynasty of inter-generational wealth transfer?

                      So how would you solve the problem of the extreme rich people who circumvent that law? It just cripples everyone who can't fund the necessary legal and financial muscle.

                      "Spend it or lose it" would also stimulate a whole lot of economic activity that would be good for everyone

                      Such as next quarter thinking and building pyramids. Economic activity is worthless, if it doesn't create value in the process. It's merely an example of the Broken Window fallacy.

                      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 11 2019, @03:28PM (1 child)

                        by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 11 2019, @03:28PM (#785060)

                        *He* is not employing anyone - Amazon is. And any money Amazon pays it's employees, or spends on new warehouses or developing new technology, is money it doesn't have to pay tax on. Tax is payed on profit, not revenue.

                        The point of a 90% tax bracket is not to take money away from the rich - it's to encourage the rich to spend that money developing the business and paying their employees better, rather than pocketing it themselves. Building value rather than amassing wealth. Spend it or lose it.

                        And that is not a broken window fallacy - that involves destroying something to generate more economic activity to replace it - which means that the net wealth created is inherently zero (minus inefficiencies).

                        Spend it or lose it comes from the opposite end - you have huge incentive to spend this money, but are free to do so in any way you like. If you can't figure out a way to generate real value in the process, you obviously don't actually have the skill you claim got you that money in the first place.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 12 2019, @01:46PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 12 2019, @01:46PM (#785496) Journal

                          *He* is not employing anyone - Amazon is.

                          And I disagree on that to the tune of half a million people.

                          And any money Amazon pays it's employees, or spends on new warehouses or developing new technology, is money it doesn't have to pay tax on.

                          Unless, of course, it came from a different business, which accounts for virtually all of their starting capital. One of the huge things ignored here is that capital and money gets moved around between businesses and other investments. The 90% taxation ignores that dynamic and would kill one of the big ways new businesses get funded.

                          And that is not a broken window fallacy - that involves destroying something to generate more economic activity to replace it - which means that the net wealth created is inherently zero (minus inefficiencies).

                          To the contrary, the destruction is in the form of economic inefficiencies introduced by policies that incentivize creating economic activity without purpose. It's not as visible as a broken window, but it's still a net drag on society just to get a little more temporary GDP.

                          Spend it or lose it comes from the opposite end - you have huge incentive to spend this money, but are free to do so in any way you like.

                          You don't get it. There is no good to come out of a policy like that. "Use it or lose it" means you have zero incentive to think about the future.

                          If you can't figure out a way to generate real value in the process, you obviously don't actually have the skill you claim got you that money in the first place.

                          Just like breaking the legs of everyone on your football team shouldn't be a problem, if they actually have the skill they claim to have. Cripple the decision-making and incentives, and you're going to get very suboptimal decisions.

                          There is this ridiculous pretense that somehow we can arbitrarily keep knee-capping a relatively good economic system and still have it function as intended. We already have more than a half a century of evidence it doesn't work that way. So much industry left the developed world, for example. Japan has stagnated for the last two decades despite borrowing twice its measured GDP. Several developed world countries (particularly, Greece) are reverting to a more primitive status "despite" (sarcastic scare quotes!) having high taxes on just about everything.

                          I think it's time to start paying attention to the seed corn, to what makes all these policies remotely feasible. That's businesses, employers, and investors. It's not the unemployed and the underemployed, nor the people who can't be bothered to save a dime. We have too many of the latter not enough of the former. Things like Bezos's wealth encourages more people to try. I think that's better than shoving a little more tax revenue (or rather a little less tax revenue) through the government machine.

            • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday January 11 2019, @04:21AM

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday January 11 2019, @04:21AM (#784886) Journal

              I'm not confusing anything. Your error is in presupposing there is some objective measure of "worth" that exists independent of price.

              But "worth" is always dependent on the situation too. If you offered me a ton of gold or a bucket of water in my current situation, I'd be a fool not to take the gold. I could buy oceans of water with it. Your parable about which I would go a month without is irrelevant, since the gold will buy me enough water to live several lifetimes.

              If, however, I'm dying in a desert, I'd be a fool not to take the water. There is no such thing as objective worth. (Something the gold fanatics would do well to remember.)

              Yes, humans absolutely need some minimum amount of stuff like water and food, so that comes closest to having objective "worth" in almost any circumstance. But labor has no objective value, nor do most goods. The only value (or "worth") as you put it, is what someone else is willing to pay/give you for it.

              Value is both a personal concept and a social concept. Clearly you do not value Bezos personally as much as society collectively values him. But your personal estimation of his "worth" is nothing more than a subjective opinion.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:45PM (#784523)

            Labour dynamics is not always as simple as a boolean choice. Human require food, water and shelter or they die. These will have to be aquired for money.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:49AM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:49AM (#784447) Journal

          Bezos doesn't have $137 billion or whatever his net worth is. He has a lot of Amazon stock, and if he were to sell most of it, the value could drop and he could be removed from his position, limiting his future income and allowing other people to accumulate the Amazon bucks.

          Elon Musk is another "cash-starved" billionaire. A lot of his worth is in Tesla stock, and that worth could potentially evaporate. On the other hand, some people predict that Tesla and SpaceX will perform amazingly well and Musk will become the first "trillionaire".

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday January 10 2019, @04:22AM (8 children)

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday January 10 2019, @04:22AM (#784467)

          capitalism is broken. it does not work and does not scale except for the tiny few at the top.

          NO single human deserves to earn that much or control that much.

          our system is so thoroughly broken by design ;(

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:10PM (6 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:10PM (#784481) Journal

            capitalism is broken. it does not work and does not scale except for the tiny few at the top.

            Ok, what's broken about it?

            NO single human deserves to earn that much or control that much.

            Then who does and how do you decide they get to earn or control that much?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @02:17AM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @02:17AM (#784804)

              Then who does... decide...?

              We do. We give them everything they have on a silver platter, for instance when we elect their servants to public office, and work for such meager compensation. We keep the peace through submission. Resistance only means extermination, unless the grunt with his finger on the trigger/button has a conscious.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @04:20AM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @04:20AM (#784885) Journal
                Who is "we"? And why should "we " have a say?
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @07:25AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @07:25AM (#784939)

                  Why not?

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @01:05PM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @01:05PM (#785008) Journal
                    Because it's not your business? You haven't actually mentioned a potential harm here. Just some vague concerns of "meager compensation" and "resistance only means extermination", etc. None which actually apply to the developed world in the real world.
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @12:18AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 12 2019, @12:18AM (#785309)

                      Yes, people are too submissive. They need to demand more for their time. We can either organize a strong union, or do it through the vote. We will make it our business whether you like it or not... Or we won't, and will continue to cower before your authority and thank you for the crumbs you leave us, and that you haven't shot us, yet. And it is only public relations that keeps the masters you so faithfully serve from exterminating us. That's a fact jack! 5 or 6 billion would please them... If we ever actually resist, they will do it, without batting an eye.

                      None which actually apply to the developed world in the real world.

                      You think too highly of yourselves. You are savages! Your evil is deep and dark.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 12 2019, @01:56PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 12 2019, @01:56PM (#785498) Journal
                        Or people are getting what they want. I get people wanting more. That covers most people's desires. Sure, I could do more myself, if I were paid more. But my question here is what are you doing to deserve what you think you deserve? Just because you think you can take more from an employer with some sort of union and such doesn't mean I would agree that you deserve it. And stealing money through the vote I think has already resulted in a lot of blowback including creation of the current system of corruption.

                        None which actually apply to the developed world in the real world.

                        You think too highly of yourselves. You are savages! Your evil is deep and dark.

                        I think there's a hell of a lot of projection here. As I noted earlier, the developed world doesn't fit within your limited view of the world. They fixed the problems of "meager pay" and "resistance only means extermination". I notice a certain class of idiot (I include you, of course) builds up a narrative straw man to attack rather than any real world example, and then engages in a variety of rhetorical nonsense in defense. Who cares about "evil" that supposedly is deep and dark" when it's not? It's just Orwellian doublethink which downplays the societies who have mostly fixed the very problems you claimed to care about.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 11 2019, @03:09AM

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 11 2019, @03:09AM (#784848)

            It think there are some good arguments for capitalism being broken that, but there's also the possibility that it's capitalism *in combination with* other, sometimes unrelated institutions that creates the real problems.

            For example - lets say we left capitalism itself completely alone but eliminated some of the largest problem-amplifiers.

            Corporations - no more limitation of responsibility - the shareholders remain completely liable for the activities of the company (including proportionally serving any prison sentences the corporation is sentenced to). That's huge incentive against racking up corporate debt in excess of assets, or being careless with people's lives. It also eliminates the value of corporate shell games.
            and
            Inheritance - eliminate it (including gifts), or at least *severely* limit it - maybe to something like a total of a few years national median income. Everyone starts life on a roughly equal financial footing, so that actual talent is the defining quality in how wealthy you become. Rich parents can still afford to do better by their kids, but they can't pass on that ever-growing pool of wealth to create dynasties of power.

            I don't think that would be a perfect solution, or realistically achievable, but it's an interesting alternative to consider.

            We've got all these interesting, powerful social technologies and institutions that we've developed and refined over the centuries, that could be put together in so many different ways. We seem to be entering a time of global political flux, opportunities for real change might appear at any moment. It would be good to thinking about how we could realistically improve things, in ways that we could really pull together on

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:04PM (6 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:04PM (#784479) Journal

          I'm also sure none of the work he's done is worth ~$290,000/hour every hour, for all of his 54 years of life.

          Never confuse what something is worth to you with what something is worth to someone willing to pay "~$290,000/hour every hour, for all of his 54 years of life". As AthanasiusKircher noted, someone was willing to pay that price (and still is paying!) which strongly indicates that Mr. Bezos was worth considerably more than that.

          As a side note, Amazon is currently employing something like half a million people. That and cheaper trade of goods sold by Amazon have to be worth something to you.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:59PM (5 children)

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:59PM (#784507)

            Nobody is chosing to pay him that much except himself and the board - who are pretty much all in on the game. High executive compensation helps justify high board-member compensation. And all of them are theoretically working for the shareholders, which Bezos at 16% is by far the largest and most influential.

            When you set your own salary, it's really hard to claim that the fact that you're getting paid that much is evidence of the value of your work.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:20PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:20PM (#784511)

              Salary... For a very long time Jeff Bezos set his salary at a very low amount and took most of his compensation in stock. Even today, his salary is small compared to most CEOs, with stock and other benefits being the majority of his compensation.

              Jeff's net worth is mostly in Amazon stock, not cash.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @05:03PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @05:03PM (#784550)

                Salary, stock - doesn't actually make much difference - either way it's a wealth transfer (though stock provides more incentive for longer-term performance - at least long enough to be able to sell.)

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @03:39AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @03:39AM (#784870) Journal

              Nobody is chosing to pay him that much except himself and the board

              That's sufficient.

              When you set your own salary, it's really hard to claim that the fact that you're getting paid that much is evidence of the value of your work.

              Where is the money coming from? It's not magically created.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 11 2019, @04:14AM (1 child)

                by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 11 2019, @04:14AM (#784881)

                No, it's not magically created. It's created by the people actually doing the work to generate the wealth - his employees.

                And he is able to take more of that wealth for himself than he has earned, because Amazon has far more negotiating power to abuse than any individual job applicant does.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @04:59AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @04:59AM (#784896) Journal

                  It's created by the people actually doing the work to generate the wealth - his employees.

                  How many of them have started up several hundred billion dollar companies? Doing a low value job like packer is not near equivalent to creating and running a company that employs over half a million people or ships so many things for so many people.

                  And of course, you miss the most important people of all, the customers who bought Amazon's products.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:45PM (10 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:45PM (#784315) Journal

    Dale Gribble: True, but Sheila, I'm married.
    Sheila: It's just us tonight.
    Dale Gribble: Oh no, Missy. There are 3 people here tonight. You, me, and my wife. I've taken two oaths in my life: One to the NRA, and the other to Nancy Hicks-Gribble.

    Leaving your wife so you can sow the thirty year younger wild oats is an admission you are a shitlord who can't maintain contracts. How you run your personal life is a good example of the kinds of practices you will allow in your business life. Words have meanings.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Wednesday January 09 2019, @11:07PM (7 children)

      by Snow (1601) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @11:07PM (#784326) Journal

      Your signature suggests you are a Trump supporter, but your comment appears to be at odds with that.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday January 09 2019, @11:42PM (5 children)

        by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday January 09 2019, @11:42PM (#784340) Journal

        My choice to ignore his obvious personal flaws is in exchange for a chance at ending perpetual war (in some theaters). More than anything else Trump appear to care about Trump, Trump's image, and Trump money. Trump is a sleaze who wants to make money and popularity, and if him getting a hotel in Pyongyang, Damascus, etc is the price of peace then its a damn good deal. Hillary may have been cleaner, but just like the Bushs her money is soaked in the blood of civilians. Can you trust Trump's words? Not a chance. But you can trust him to make things better for himself, and for the first time in decades we have a president who is more beholden to peace than he is to war.

        Trump for all his faults offers us a chance of reprise from war and death so that he can satisfy his own quest for influence and money. What does Bezos offer us in return? Monopoly? Prices that increase if you look at the item often enough? A space company without vision?

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @04:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @04:19AM (#784464)

          He ain't done yet. He may be asshole buddies with Putin, but we may be very close to a shooting war with China.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:13PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:13PM (#784482) Journal

          What does Bezos offer us in return? Monopoly? Prices that increase if you look at the item often enough? A space company without vision?

          What's supposed to be the problems?

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 10 2019, @05:56PM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 10 2019, @05:56PM (#784588) Journal

          You can't trust his word except when his word says he's withdrawing from Syria, apparently.

          How's that North Korean denuclearization going?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @07:02PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @07:02PM (#784613)

            Oh gee good point I sure hope you are right so we all get to die!

        • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday January 10 2019, @07:31PM

          by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @07:31PM (#784627)

          Bah... Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about peace or perpetual war. He is beholden to one thing only: Donald J. Trump.

          If peace will result in a gain for him he will support it. If perpetual war will result in a gain for him he will support that too.

          How anyone can imagine that things will improve under that dishonest asshole sociopath is beyond me.

          --
          The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 10 2019, @05:54PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 10 2019, @05:54PM (#784582) Journal

        Your signature suggests you are a Trump supporter, but your comment appears to be at odds with that.

        It's the magic (R) next to his name.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 10 2019, @02:51AM (#784432)

      At this point, there's no saying who initiated this AFAICT. His wife might be the one wanting new cock. Women around that age are usually at either end of the horniness spectrum, so flip a coin on that one.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday January 11 2019, @02:20AM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday January 11 2019, @02:20AM (#784807) Journal

      Words have meanings.

      Taxes have bigger meaning. Follow the money, not the drama. Cui bono?

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..