Hacker News Reader

A million times more risky bet? By what measure? The risk to his livelyhood? His savings? That kind of hyperbole might help your argument, but I think it's wrong in a few regards. If he came from a lucrative job in the finance industry that means that he had a position to fall back on if it didn't work out, he would have had plenty of capital to bankroll his business without hefty, high-interest loans. His interest on those loans would almost definitely be lower because he is less risk to the lender. He would also have had connections in the business lending industry but I think that is getting too specific for my argument.

Compare this to someone who has a background in retail or a warehouse worker, the personal and financial risk of starting a business is arguably higher. In order to accrue the savings to start their business they would have to work far more hours, and if it doesn't work out they may never have the opportunity to try again. They have less job security if the business fails. They have less savings, and may completely deplete their savings and incur a large debt if it doesn't work out.

I'm not saying that Jeff Bezos didn't earn some of his keep, or that Amazon doesn't provide a lot of service, but I would say the risk vs reward of his business is atronomical compared to the average business startup. The entire idea that he took a risker bet starting a business than a minimum wage worker is, I think, totally wrong, it's utterly ridiculous, and lacks any perspective on what minimum wage workers have to stress about.

Exactly, we should just be upfront when we say that his success is due to both luck and hard work. Hard work is a given, and many people do that. But to really succeed you need a good dose of luck as well, and luck is not something you "work" for

Hard work is the most idiotic concept ever. If one works hard,he usually stays in the same place for 30 years. One needs to work smart,not hard...

If you massively taxed outsized earnings and/or capped it, he probably would have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail?

What is the marginal utility of another billion dollars to someone who is already a billionaire? What motivates Jeff to get out of bed in the morning?

The answer: winning.

Guys like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are the business equivalent of professional athletes. The money they continue to make is only a trophy at this point. To them, the real prize is to enter new markets and succeed, challenging and disrupting the status quo.

> No, but he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker.

He took a risk in absolute monetary terms perhaps, but not risk in terms of consequence. Having spent a few years being relatively high up in DE Shaw, the worst that might have happened to him if his business failed is that he'd move to a smaller house.

Contrast that situation with someone who might struggle to make rent if their business failed, and tell me who's really taking the bigger risk.

How would Jeff bezos be in a better situation than some small business owner if both companies failed?

How would he not? Are you really arguing that someone with D.E. Shaw and Princeton on his resume would be in the same position as, in your words, a "typical minimum wage worker"?

Even ignoring the signaling value of D.E. Shaw and Princeton, are you arguing that the wealth he'd accumulated in his career up till that point is comparable to that of the "typical minimum wage worker"?

Then are you arguing that a hedge fund manager and a "typical minimum wage worker" face the same relative risk when they invest the same amount of money? In other words, are you saying that someone who has 110,000 dollars in savings and someone who has 11,000 dollars in savings face the same risk if they both invest 10,000 dollars?

"he did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker"

No, definitely not.

The rhetoric here is missing the nature of power: power gives leverage and enables entities to extract money and surpluses. Knowledge and talent is just one means to power. A more common means is patronage. The highest earning individuals are generally more talented and intelligent, but not that much more so.

Major corps have access to information, systems, lobbying that individuals do not have, any 'salary negotiation' is like playing poker against the house: the tables are tilted.

I think European taxation is excessive after income, payroll and VAT it's well beyond 50% for many income earners (though they get healthcare from that), there's no reason that those earning $1M a year can't pay the tax rates on the books, and opt to hide their money offshore.

Especially in US/Canada where taxes aren't crazy, there's really no excuse for these folks. It's just criminal.

"He did make a million times more risky bet than the typical minimum wage worker"

What a ridiculous statement! A bet one million times riskier than the average person makes would be one where there's a 1% chance of achieving great wealth and a 99% chance of everybody you love dying immediately.

An already affluent person starting a business is not that risky.

> have never even started the company because why would you take the extreme risk of doing a startup when most of them fail? He

“To change the world”

An already affluent guy convinced affluent investors to fund a technology company which the social meme was going on and on about being the next big thing.

I find it hard to believe there was any sort of real “risk” to Bezos future ability to earn a more than average wage.

It’s an information and networking game. You can say there’s some sort of numerical or quantifiable risk. But I suspect Bezos status pre-Amazon, in an early 90’s economy, with a very different wealth equality and cost of living scenario for the masses, he was well buffered from any long term ruin.

Just consider how much it’s changed: 22 people invested $50k according to Google. What’s that get you in 1994? My after tax take home is $110ish/year depending on bonus. My purchase power is a fraction of what it was a generation ago. I should be taking home $500k/yr to enjoy the same purchase power as someone making $110k in the 80s. And this is “normal”, we’re told.

Most people don’t even get anywhere near the network access and education he had.

The notion that we exist in a meritocracy is mind bogglingly engrained in the masses. Bezos earned every cent, it seems. They pay economists a lot to measure very carefully and confirm as much.

Bezos is not that good and that special, and took very little real risk. Society is rewarding him so much because that’s what society is told is correct.

> I find it hard to believe there was any sort of real “risk” to Bezos future ability to earn a more than average wage.

You are ignoring opportunity costs [0]. He quit a highly lucrative job in finance to attempt a startup where he probably payed himself like 1/10th the wages of his old job during the initial years while he established his business.

With like 90% of startups failing [1], that is a massive risk in the hope of future stock worth for decreased current wages.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

[1]: https://medium.com/swlh/why-90-of-startups-fail-and-what-to-...

You’re ignoring the boring but more important human aspect for abstraction: he was capable of getting such a job once and was well connected to a couple dozen people that could toss $50k/each at him on a pipe dream.

If it failed, he would have had plenty of options relative to the average worker.

And he lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars of real income while pursuing said startup. In his case, the stock that he created ended up being worth way more but for 90% of companies, that stock will be worth nothing.