Executive chairman now, though the issues with unsafe workplaces and pay date back to his time as CEO.

But yes, simply raising taxes won't solve the problem, it's the underlying system that's rotten.

And why can't we just do data satellites instead of data centres? Satellites are at much lower risk of overheating because they're in the cold vacuum of space.

Because space isn't cold.  Not in the way you think. 

The coldness in space is due to the extreme lack of density.  There's not enough stuff in space to get hot, so to speak, as heat in our traditional understanding has to do with particle excitation.  The actual particles in space might be very, very energetic and thus in theory hot.  But there are so few, that almost no heat is actually conducted to an object passing through that region.  And thus it is "cold" in the sense you radiate away far more heat than you receive.

However, that last bit is important:  you radiate that heat away.  It isn't pulled away like it is in a cold environment here.  In an atmosphere or in water, heat is pulled from a hot object because the excited particles of that object make contact with much less energetic particles and impart their energy to them.  This essentially pulls the heat out of the object until temperatures reach equilibrium, cooling you through conduction.  

But in space, that doesn't happen.  Instead, the particles of a hot object have to lose their energy on their own over time through radiative cooling.  This is orders of magnitude less efficient.  So for example, going outside with no protection in -45° F weather on earth will leave you frozen in under an hour.  In a space region of similar "temperature," it would take 16 hours or longer.

So in fact, space is terrible for things that need conductive cooling.  There's no heat sink in space that the heat can be pulled into.  That's why data centers wouldn't work and also why things like conventional nuclear energy and energy generators in general are more complicated to put into use there.

And on that tax the rich, affordability, etc things, I will be as brief as I can cause I do want us to stay on topic.  First, America has one of these most progressive tax systems in the developed world.  More than Sweden, more than Denmark, more than Germany, more than Australia, more than Britain.  When factoring in cash and in kind transfers, only the top half of income earners even pay federal taxes on net.  And setting that aside, the top 5% of income earners early 42% of income but account for 66% of all income taxes collected.  Meanwhile the bottom 75% account for 28% of incomes but pay 10% of the taxes.

And by net worth, it's the same story.  In 2022 (this kind of minute data can be tricky to find in a hurry since people have to compile it), the top 5% paid 1.3 trillion in income taxes, 61% of total income taxes.  The top 1% alone paid 855 billion.  The top 10% paid 1.54 trillion.  The bottom 90%?  600 billion.

America taxes its wealthy, the burden of federal taxes falls overwhelmingly on the upper class.  And transfers go overwhelmingly to the middle and lower class.  In fact, there's far more direct transfer of money from the top to the rest in America than Nordic countries like Sweden because while their welfare systems are more robust, they tax *everyone* far more.  The rich pay more taxes than in the US, yes, but the middle class pay far more and the working class far, far more.  Which is the point, the system doesn't work by taking from the rich to give to the poor per se, but rather by using funds raised from all to support a system that provides relatively flat but generous benefits.  Which is why it is pretty stable and well funded.

The real issue in the US is that unlike other coubtries in Europe, there are no laws or rules that force the Federal government to be efficient.  And I mean actually efficient, not the BS efficiency the current administration claims to want.  The Federal Government can run whatever deficit it wants and just kick the can of fixing all its problems down the road.  

Also, raising taxes=/= making things better.  It can, but it can also mean subsidizing sports stadiums, nonsensical economic stimulus that does nothing, expanded bureaucratic waste, wars, mass deportation activities, vanity projects.  The government isn't a business, which means it isn't driven by profit, sure.  But that also means it isn't BOUND by profit.  It's actions can be capricious and arbitrary and are backed by a monopoly on violent force.  It doesn't have to do things that make sense, that people want.  Yeah you can vote them out, every 2 to 6 years.  But as this administration has shown, 2 t1o 6 years can be a long time.

And finally, on housing affordability and other dinner table issues, the causes of those are often much closer to home than the Federal Government or your equivalent.  Land use regulations in the US (and similar in Canada, Australia, and Brittain) account for many ills regarding housing on their own.  Until those are changed, the issues will persist. 

And it is a set of powers that government is loath to give up.  And the people who lobby hardest to maintain them aren't billionaire businessmen.  It's predominantly middle class busy bodies, the kind who will take a day off work to go to a town hall miles away to make melodramatic protestations about the fascist, violent, neo-colonial activity of a someone - could be a big corporation or small business - constructing 50 appartment units.  Or 5 town houses.  Or converting a single family home to a duplex.  And no, I am not exaggerating, I can give ample examples because it happens *all the time.*

Similar regional and municipal regulations, relics of mid-century urban planning, poison cities in these countries, regulations established for the purposes of racial separation and class segregation.  And regardless of what party wields them or thwir motivations, they will continue their destructive work regardless.  The lack of interest in doing away with these is, in my opinion, the greatest hypocrisy of those local politicians who claim to champion affordability, urbanism, and a desire to end the defacto segregation that these regulations have caused.

Because space isn't cold.  Not in the way you think. 

The coldness in space is due to the extreme lack of density.  There's not enough stuff in space to get hot, so to speak, as heat in our traditional understanding has to do with particle excitation.  The actual particles in space might be very, very energetic and thus in theory hot.  But there are so few, that almost no heat is actually conducted to an object passing through that region.  And thus it is "cold" in the sense you radiate away far more heat than you receive.

However, that last bit is important:  you radiate that heat away.  It isn't pulled away like it is in a cold environment here.  In an atmosphere or in water, heat is pulled from a hot object because the excited particles of that object make contact with much less energetic particles and impart their energy to them.  This essentially pulls the heat out of the object until temperatures reach equilibrium, cooling you through conduction.  

But in space, that doesn't happen.  Instead, the particles of a hot object have to lose their energy on their own over time through radiative cooling.  This is orders of magnitude less efficient.  So for example, going outside with no protection in -45° F weather on earth will leave you frozen in under an hour.  In a space region of similar "temperature," it would take 16 hours or longer.

So in fact, space is terrible for things that need conductive cooling.  There's no heat sink in space that the heat can be pulled into.  That's why data centers wouldn't work and also why things like conventional nuclear energy and energy generators in general are more complicated to put into use there.

And on that tax the rich, affordability, etc things, I will be as brief as I can cause I do want us to stay on topic.  First, America has one of these most progressive tax systems in the developed world.  More than Sweden, more than Denmark, more than Germany, more than Australia, more than Britain.  When factoring in cash and in kind transfers, only the top half of income earners even pay federal taxes on net.  And setting that aside, the top 5% of income earners earn nearly 42% of income but account for 66% of all income taxes collected.  Meanwhile the bottom 75% account for 28% of incomes but pay 10% of the taxes.

And by net worth, it's the same story.  In 2022 (this kind of minute data can be tricky to find in a hurry since people have to compile it), the top 5% paid 1.3 trillion in income taxes, 61% of total income taxes.  The top 1% alone paid 855 billion.  The top 10% paid 1.54 trillion.  The bottom 90%?  600 billion.

America taxes its wealthy, the burden of federal taxes falls overwhelmingly on the upper class.  And transfers go overwhelmingly to the middle and lower class.  In fact, there's far more direct transfer of money from the top to the rest in America than Nordic countries like Sweden because while their welfare systems are more robust, they tax *everyone* far more.  The rich pay more taxes than in the US, yes, but the middle class pay far more and the working class far, far more.  Which is the point, the system doesn't work by taking from the rich to give to the poor per se, but rather by using funds raised from all to support a system that provides relatively flat but generous benefits.  Which is why it is pretty stable and well funded.

The real issue in the US is that unlike other coubtries in Europe, there are no laws or rules that force the Federal government to be efficient.  And I mean actually efficient, not the BS efficiency the current administration claims to want.  The Federal Government can run whatever deficit it wants and just kick the can of fixing all its problems down the road.  

Also, raising taxes=/= making things better.  It can, but it can also mean subsidizing sports stadiums, nonsensical economic stimulus that does nothing, expanded bureaucratic waste, wars, mass deportation activities, mass surveilance, vanity projects.  The government isn't a business, which means it isn't driven by profit, sure.  But that also means it isn't BOUND by profit.  It's actions can be capricious and arbitrary and are backed by a monopoly on violent force.  It doesn't have to do things that make sense, that people want.  Yeah you can vote them out, every 2 to 6 years.  But as this administration has shown, 2 to 6 years can be a long time.

And finally, on housing affordability and other dinner table issues, the causes of those are often much closer to home than the Federal Government or your equivalent.  Land use regulations in the US (and similar in Canada, Australia, and Brittain) account for many ills regarding housing on their own.  Until those are changed, the issues will persist. 

And it is a set of powers that government is loath to give up.  And the people who lobby hardest to maintain them aren't billionaire businessmen.  It's predominantly middle class busy bodies, the kind who will take a day off work to go to a town hall miles away to make melodramatic protestations about the fascist, violent, neo-colonial activity of someone - could be a big corporation or small business - constructing 50 appartment units.  Or 5 town houses.  Or converting a single family home to a duplex.  And no, I am not exaggerating, I can give ample examples because it happens *all the time.*

Similar regional and municipal regulations, relics of mid-century urban planning, poison cities in these countries, regulations established for the purposes of racial separation and class segregation.  And regardless of what party wields them or thwir motivations, they will continue their destructive work regardless.  The lack of interest in doing away with these is, in my opinion, the greatest hypocrisy of those local politicians who claim to champion affordability, urbanism, and a desire to end the defacto segregation that these regulations have caused.

Well Bezos isn't the CEO...  hasnt been for a number of years.  

And yes, it is a problem.  Yes it needs to get fixed.

But the "tax" them argument reeks of not understanding the system.  

People really ought to educate themselves before forming such strong opinions.

The issue is how boards work and people getting paid in stock.

Again, it is about understanding the system.  Can't fix a problem unless we understand it.  I don't recall the exact quote, but Einstein said if the world was going to end in an hour he would spend 55 minutes understanding the problem and 5 minutes executing.

The amount of economic and legal inaccuracies i see on VG is mind blowing.

I need to find the video again and gonna attach it to this post once I do, but the rich are generally undertaxed out of fear they'd leave the country entirely.

The problem with that mentality is that it ignores network effects that are only available for the country they're in, as those have been built over the years and the company they're owning built around those. Also, being the foreign boss of a national company is just very bad publicity.

Long story short, raising the taxes for the rich would have very minimal effects on their risk of leaving. Sure, they'll complain super loudly that it would be stifling innovation and personal success, but considering all the ways they have to avoid taxes and their net worth, it'd be just a minor inconvenience anyway.