Talk for Article "Fact check: Does Jeff Bezos make more in 10 seconds than median Amazon employee in a year?"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    > Note that the $40 billion is not money Bezos made the same way one earns a salary but rather the increase in the price the market was willing to pay for his company. In other words, it’s the increase in the amount he could potentially make if he sold his Amazon shares at market price.

    It is not immediately apparent whether the distinction between salary and capital gains undermines or reinforces Sanders’ claim. I have seen arguments to the effect of both.

    As long as this paragraph will be kept, it should be made more complete by also comparing the capital gains of the median Amazon employee. I unfortunately have no idea if this data is available.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    it seems Sanders said the same claim but in a different way this time, see this tweet, not sure if we can include both claims ( income /10 sec and income/hr) ?

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    There is shock-value to this headline and story, but there is no discussion about why the calculation is important or relevant. Publishing the former without the latter will render the story meaningless, and I fear make Wikitribune look like just another publication that throws spitballs at successful people. Steve Merican.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      I agree. I think it’s good to fact check such claims – is it true or not true? But of course a further discussion of relevance is important.

      Because how much Jeff Bezos makes is dependent on the stock market ups and downs, a particularly bad day for Amazon stock surely means he loses as much per day sometimes as some dramatic amount relative to the salaries. That seems interesting and relevant to me, what do you think?

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        Agreed 100 percent that it’s good to fact-check Sanders, and all other politicians and policymakers and people who have a public voice who are trying to effect policy. So maybe in a case like this one, where the relevance of the fact checked is not apparent on its face, the answer to my problem is to make a brief explanatory statement and link to a fuller explanation. That would keep the integrity of the fact-checked article and allow the reader to explore further if he or she desires.

  4. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    Does the Sanders tweet that triggered this fact check not get a shoutout? Would it not make sense to say “Sanders was right… ” in the headline?

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
      Deleted User

      Yes, many thanks and you’re right Austin. We’re developing a style for our fact checks, see others here:

      So I’ll apply that and add the Sanders tweet to this story now.

      And here’s our fact checking guidelines which you may also find interesting reading:

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us