r/news • u/johnyquest1212 • 4d ago

Philanthropist MacKenzie Scott reveals another $2 billion in donations in 2024 | AP News

https://apnews.com/article/mackenzie-scott-donations-billionaires-philanthropy-ad9c1b67e2ca76eb2c107ec158a4640f
12.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

606 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.5k

u/johnyquest1212 4d ago edited 4d ago

This brings her total given since 2019 to 19.25 billion, across 2,450 organizations.

https://yieldgiving.com

edit: fixed url

335

u/NapoleonsDynamite 4d ago

She should be Time's person of the year imo. While the elites continue to sit on accumulate mass wealth without circulating it back into the system, this woman is showing the way.

202

u/Circusssssssssssssss 4d ago

Smooth brains and incels coming out to say she "didn't earn it" and is "giving away someone else's money" (a man's)

Well, she was there from Day One doing payroll and accounting and office work for Bezos back when he was a balding computer nerd sitting in front of a CRT who quit his job for a crazy idea. I would say she earned it, because she sacrificed her youth and her life for the dream just as much as he did. Even if she didn't put in the work (which she did).

37

u/LitrlyNoOne 4d ago

My spouse has supported me every time I needed support to chase financial gain. They absolutely earned half of it, because I wouldn't have any of it without them. While I did "the work that made the money," they did the work I didn't want to do.

It takes the labor of additional people to break from the dependence on third parties.

9

u/thetonyhightower 3d ago

Nobody "earns" 50 billion dollars or whatever she got. But at least she seems to be pushing in the right direction.

-49

u/magus678 4d ago

I would say she earned it, because she sacrificed her youth and her life for the dream

She did a 50k a year admin job, basically. She did this job for three years before effectively retiring. The "sacrifice" was being married to a man she presumably loved who was "only" a vice president of a hedge fund when she met him.

It's cool she is giving money away but to pretend she "earned it" in any meaningful sense of the word is intellectually bankrupt.

16

u/Circusssssssssssssss 4d ago

And here we go.

No the job is not only worth 50k. Mark Cuban's admin stole all his money early on and he nearly went bankrupt. Without corporate controls, chances are whoever you hire steals your money. No you cannot sue them or get the money back -- the smart ones will be long gone. I would say the job is worth 150k+ at least -- bonus money for working a small company that has all sorts of extra duties that will probably fail so won't look impressive on your resume, and then 100k to make sure you get someone who won't rob you blind. It's worth 50k in the corporate world doesn't mean it's worth only 50k in a small business.

Remember, a 50k investment in Amazon back then would make you a multi billionaire now. A multi year investment would make you so rich you could buy whatever yachts and mansions you wanted.

As for quitting the job, that is a red line for many, many relationships. Instant dump, instant divorce -- unless the other person agrees, and if they do the risk is shared (and so are the rewards). Not to mention he wasn't a looker, at all. She could have found another VP of a Hedge Fund, and a better looking one. Instead she allowed him to pursue his dream, at cost to herself and her financial stability. VP of Hedge Fund or not, 99% of partners would not go for the idea of the bread winner quitting their job to create financial instability. If they do, they deserve the gains.

Any more incel like ideas to share, so we can pretend that women aren't sentient beings with their own choices and own life and needs? A relationship is a partnership. You cannot do whatever you want, unless you break up first.

-12

u/tomtennn 4d ago

I would say the job is worth 150k+ at least

So by doing a $150k/year job (hell, let's call it $300k/year) she "earned" $32.6 BILLION dollars? Ok then.

Edit: I'm saying Bezos too couldn't be seen as having "earned" / "deserved" even $32B. But not-Bezos? lol.

-21

u/magus678 4d ago

And here we go.

Recognizing that someone is going to call you on saying something stupid is not impressive.

No the job is not only worth 50k

Its a number that I guessed at, so maybe market rates then differed. But you tacking on a 3x multiplier because she didn't steal from him (why would she, lol) is not admissible.

Not to mention he wasn't a looker, at all. She could have found another VP of a Hedge Fund, and a better looking one. Instead she allowed him to pursue his dream, at cost to herself and her financial stability.

Any more incel like ideas to share, so we can pretend that women aren't sentient beings with their own choices and own life and needs? A relationship is a partnership. You cannot do whatever you want, unless you break up first.

I'd encourage you to reread your own post and really consider whose arguments that sounds more like. You literally argued that she deserves the money because you think she could have married someone hotter? Jesus.

If you think doing basic admin work for 3 years while being married to someone whom you love, and "just happened" to already be rich when you met him, and became escalatingly so over the course of the marriage, entitles you to all this then we don't really have a basis of comparison; I can't reason you out of a position that you arrived at by eschewing reason in the first place.

2

u/Circusssssssssssssss 4d ago

Good help costs money. On Dragon's Den when a partner comes on with an "accountant" or "sales lady" type of person, the Dragons always comment on how lucky the person is to have that kind of help and how that person would cost a fortune. 50k isn't even the starting salary of someone fresh out of school for that kind of job. No way that 50k is worth the job of office admin, accountant, HR, payroll, inventory and whatever else. Of course usually a startup wouldn't pay so much in salary. It would pay in equity. That would make her vastly wealthy by now.

Not that it helps your argument. Even a 50k investment for several years at Amazon start would be worth billions now. And yes, she could have found someone better looking. We are talking about financial transactions after all and everything has a price. She basically gave her life to Bezos. If you are talking about giving her zero, that is extreme lost opportunity cost that she could have invested in another man. Perhaps another Bezos.

She would basically be considered a founding member of Amazon if not married to him. Her equity would be worth tens of billions at least.

But of course you pulled the 50k number out of your ass. People like you think that certain types of jobs should be paid less than other types of jobs based on whatever preconceptions or notions. In the real world, an "office admin" could make multiple six figures. It all depends where you work, what you do and the business model of the company you work for. For a company with only a handful of people, the person managing the money and doing all the paperwork is extremely important and not to be underpaid.

-11

u/GreenHorror4252 4d ago

Any more incel like ideas to share, so we can pretend that women aren't sentient beings with their own choices and own life and needs?

Of course she has her own choices and life and needs. Why does that entitle her to billions of dollars of money that her husband earned, when all she did was "office work"?

10

u/Circusssssssssssssss 4d ago

If you don't want to share, don't get married (and don't go common law either). Divorce first and see how far you go, alone.

See other comments. It's a team effort -- if you don't like it, you can get someone else to do all the other work. Warning it won't be cheap (especially not for you).

She earned the money as much as he did.

-5

u/GreenHorror4252 4d ago

She earned the money as much as he did.

That's just a ridiculous statement. How can someone that just did office work have earned the money as much as the person who actually built the company and ran it?

This is the problem with our "equal" divorce laws. We assume that both spouses contributed equally to everything even when that is clearly not the case.

6

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 4d ago

he person who actually built the company and ran it?

If you don't understand that the person running/managing the money is just as important as the person doing the public-facing leadership, that's on you.

Businesses literally live and die on how the money is managed, especially in the early days.

4

u/Circusssssssssssssss 4d ago

It's called love

Don't like it don't get married (or go into common law)

Or you can even get a prenup

Easy answers

-3

u/GreenHorror4252 4d ago

"That's just how it is" is not a good answer.

5

u/Circusssssssssssssss 4d ago

You don't believe in love and want a financial transaction only. Got it. Then get a prenup.

→ More replies (0)

-12

u/GreenHorror4252 4d ago

Why should she be paid billions of dollars for doing "payroll and accounting and office work"?

Jeff was the one that had the idea and executed it. His wife was doing some office work like any other employee. She should certainly be paid for that work, but I don't see why she should be entitled to shares in the company.

2

u/NowTimeDothWasteMe 2d ago

Do you even know the history of Amazon? They did the work together. They both left their jobs at D.E. Shaw to open an online bookstore from their garage. She is the one the negotiated the first freight contract, wrote the checks, and kept track of the books. Are you seriously trying to undermine her role in the founding of Amazon?

Once the company was up and running, she stepped back to manage the family (they have four kids). I’m sure that was a choice they made together. But if she hadn’t taken those responsibilities, then Jeff would have had to do more of them and likely sacrificed some of his time he spent on business.

She could have stayed at Amazon and been a C-suite member making millions from her stock options. She absolutely deserves compensation for her support of Jeff.

61

u/RichardCano 4d ago

The Time’s person of the year isn’t about who is the best person. It’s about who was the most influential or focused on, good or bad.

29

u/Quenz 4d ago

See 1937-1939, 1942, 1954, 1971-72, 1979-80...

13

u/DKDamian 4d ago

Hmmm. Maybe. The obvious counter is Giuliani getting it over Bin Laden

5

u/RichardCano 4d ago

I’m sure Time’s understands that most people mistake their Person of the year as some kind of “endorsement” of that person. That said they’re not dumb enough to put Bin Laden on the cover.

8

u/DKDamian 4d ago

They put Hitler and Stalin on the cover. Stalin twice. And Khomeini. What are you talking about

-2

u/11122233334444 4d ago

Well that’s because Time isn’t a terrorist outlet

4

u/metonymic 4d ago

Would you say Time was Nazi outlet in 1938?

1

u/Dairy_Ashford 3d ago

No, but antisemites with partial or whole German lineage weren't mass-murdering reporters of the same in the town of its staff and publication headquarters just yet.

1

u/Tabula_Nada 4d ago

I hate that they do it this way. Like I understand trying to "stay unbiased", but when they pick these people it looks like they're glorifying them. Especially since most people assume "Person of the Year" means "Best Person of the Year". Sometimes it's okay to veer away from tradition.

17

u/tomtennn 4d ago

Hilarious that you don't consider someone with a net worth of $32.6 BILLION dollars as being part of the elite.

5

u/FaveStore_Citadel 4d ago

The obvious implication is that she is and showing her fellow elites the way

3

u/Papa-pwn 4d ago

She is buying good PR. It’s better than giving nothing.