161–170 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why don't victims of domestic abuse leave immediately but stay for years? Yeah never understood that one either if i'm honest.
When Kanye West publicly wondered if slaves in the United States made a "choice" to stay in slavery for hundreds of years, he was rightly mocked for being a moron. It's pretty depressing to see the same lack of empathy and critical thinking on hn.
IMO, it is never proper for the legislature to target an individual or individual company. It's perfectly fine for enforcement agencies (OSHA, FDA, IRS, FAA, FTC, SEC, etc) to enforce policy/law on individuals/companies who have been found in violation, but to originally target individuals with the force of government lawmaking is a dramatic overreach of power, IMO. If Senator Sanders et al want to target all compani…
Generally good in concept that companies should pay enough that a full time job puts people above the poverty line and above eligibility for govt benefits -- anything less means that the companies themselves are effectively freeloading on govt welfare (externalizing their costs to the govt, which makes it tolerable to work at these companies) Much easier solution is to simply increase minimum wage as required, and pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> corporate feudalism is deeply entrenched in consciousness Is there anything about Amazon being a corporation that really touches on this, as opposed to their simply being an employer? I feel like an analogy like this is of limited utility anyway. It's too easy to point out all the myriad ways that the existing system is different from feudalism, and it's unclear whether the negative aspects of feudalism continue to…
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying the modern welfare state is feudalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unpopular alternative interpretation: the market is distorted by food stamps. Imagine if the government announced it will pay for lightbulbs for workers whose workplaces don't provide lightbulbs. Inevitably, certain workplaces would stop providing lightbulbs. Would you really blame them? This will sound unintuitive, but what if one of the requirements for welfare was that the recipient NOT work? Suddenly, companies w…
> Suddenly, companies would be forced to make jobs more desirable than food stamps. Revised: Suddenly, companies would be forced to make jobs more desirable than food stamps without housing. In order for the not working stipulation to work, the social safety net would actually have to be expanded to cover housing as well, since I would much rather have a job where I can have housing and ramen every single meal than s…
"Sanders has introduced a bill designed to force companies such as Amazon to pay their workers higher wages." Instead of picking on Amazon perhaps politicians should look at the actual root cause here. If there are minimum wages laws (and there are) and people paid minimum wage still need food stamps then perhaps the problem lies with minimum wages and those who set them... Politicians.
Unpopular alternative interpretation: the market is distorted by food stamps. Imagine if the government announced it will pay for lightbulbs for workers whose workplaces don't provide lightbulbs. Inevitably, certain workplaces would stop providing lightbulbs. Would you really blame them? This will sound unintuitive, but what if one of the requirements for welfare was that the recipient NOT work? Suddenly, companies w…
But, having lived in a few different countries, I can tell you that if a loaf of bread costs 50c then left on its own the market will tend to pay only slightly more per day for unskilled work. People can live in a cardboard box but they have to eat.
"Sanders has introduced a bill designed to force companies such as Amazon to pay their workers higher wages." Instead of picking on Amazon perhaps politicians should look at the actual root cause here. If there are minimum wages laws (and there are) and people paid minimum wage still need food stamps then perhaps the problem lies with minimum wages and those who set them... Politicians.
Isn't this law just another way to specify a minimum wage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. Trying to pretend this is about Wal-Mart selling food, and not the wages they pay is incredibly dishonest.
> What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. If that's the case then I fail to see how a particular employer is responsible for that problem. I mean, if the economy is so depressed in a region that the absolute best some job seekers are able to get is a job that requires them to remain on public…
Again consider the fact that Walmart as a national grocer is able to milk the SNAP program on a national level to the tune of $14B/year.
That enables them to move into a depressed area and set up shop, even at a loss, which in turn allows them to shutter the existing market incumbent(s).
With the mom & pops gone and/or employee owned grocer now gone only Walmart is left.
It’s using tax payer funds to out compete competition, which allows Walmart to further depress wages.
It’s not like this behavior is all theoretical. In practice Walmart takes taxpayer money and turns around and lobbies congress to increase SNAP benefits so they can keep lining their pockets. Walmart takes losses in certain regions to put others out of business to become sole grocer. These losses are in part balanced and paid for by tax payer dollars at the national level.
In many ways Walmart is directly responsible for lack of competition and closed stores, and despite the desperate attempt to say that is free market...it’s not free market when 1 company is subsidized by taxpayer money and the loser isn’t.
You are right effort should be made into improving/fixing the economy and lives of workers...getting rid of corporate welfare for certain businesses is part of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"To the benefit of the people" and "does violence to the rule of law" are not mutually exclusive, at least in the short term.
Enforcing any law inherently does violence to people. Do you wish to pedestal law above people? And if not, do you want them on equal footing? I personally would like to work toward a culture that doesn't require law and, barring that, law that peacefully respects a person's decision to revoke consent to be governed at any moment's notice. Blanket consent for government isn't realistic or sustainable. And even if it…
1. This is an article to sell a book. "I took the job as part of the research for my book" This isn't unbiased factual research. The author is obviously going to cherry-pick the the craziest things he saw- with 1200 people over six months you are going to see crazy things. If the author didn't do this is would be bad marketing for a boring book.
2. The nice thing about low paying jobs is they are normally easy to replace. These workers didn't spend a ton of money going to school to specialize in Amazon warehouse work. If Amazon is that horrible work at McDonalds, Walmart, etc.
3. The nice thing about low paying jobs should be low bills. If you only make $1600 per month your bills should only be ~$1400 per month. Big houses, lots of kids, debt, etc should not be part of a formula to figure pay.
4. This reminds me of the Trump travel ban. Can judges now say based on Bernie's intentions (using the bill's name) any legislation he now tries to pass regarding this is obviously mean spirited and targeting Amazon? This isn't a factual point looking for legal analysis, a similarity just struck me.
5. I worked in a WH where a guy crapped his pants and kept working. This isn't because the company forced him- people do weird things.
Points 2 and 3 are personal- not trying to force my views onto others. I am not trying to tell people that work at Amazon they need to be happy and satisfied because from my view it looks like they should be. My point is that I always liked the idea that if my main career fails I can pay all my bills with a 35 hour week at minimum wage. Outside the urban centers this is not too hard. My grand total monthly bills including food, netflix, housing, car insurance, cell phone, food, etc is about ~$1400. (no, my parents do not pay any of my bills or give me an allowance.)
$1600 per monthly is a perfectly "ok" wage. Sure it isn't great but you can live happily on it in many locations. A single parent with 5 kids and a ton of debt can't, but I don't think laws should target a company based on the worst scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But raising minimum wage at what cost? It's already gotten really hard for high school kids to find work. Raising minimum wage will just make that worse.
I'm far less concerned about high school kids than I am about people needing these jobs to survive.