61–70 of 487 posts
What percentage of non-amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps? We all love to hate Amazon, but such statistics are meaningless without context.
No one who can hold down a job and is currently employed should need government assistance to survive. Doesn’t matter if it’s Amazon or its competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's essentially just a subsidy to large employers? So they can not pay their employees enough? Is this what these programs are intended for? I didn't understand it that way but maybe I'm wrong.
It is in effect a subsidy to employers, while still being a benefit to employees. As prior evidence shows, there is always someone willing to work for less, if they have to. As such, the only real solution to the issue that does not make the economic situation worse for employees is to punish corporations for paying so little that their employees need benefits from the government. Anything else only hurts the employe…
Such people are not particularly easy to find right now. The employment situation in the US is the best for workers it has been in decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to apply marginal thinking here. They are better off with welfare benefits, which means it's a good thing that they have them. If you gave them more benefits, they would have more negotiating power and be able to become even more employed[0], and then would you complain more? [0] assuming that's what they want to do
Giving benefits to employees, instead of forcing the company to pay a living wage, is effectively a subsidy for corporate profits.
If workers need government aid to make basic ends meet, it is the employer, not the employee, that is on welfare, subsidized by taxpayers and government borrowing.
That is not correct - a person with no skills who has 10 kids will never be able to support themselves via a job. It is welfare for them.
Welfare is mainly intended for children and the elderly because we don't want child laborers.
For example; in this scenario if we offered individuals far stronger welfare benefits (schooling benefits, UBI etc) the odds are that very few people would be warehouse workers for Amazon. Alternatively, if we we forced companies to pay for this welfare (such as with progressive taxation based on # of individuals working and on welfare), then they would offer higher wages and with higher wages gives greater mobility.
Make no mistake, this is a feature not a bug of our system. It is designed to keep the poor working in jobs that maintain their poverty.
I would like to see negative income tax. You have to insert the fresh printed money into the economy some place. Why not have people work for it?
This is how our system works. The government subsidizes corporate low wage work, and everyone pats themselves on the back for being so enormously virtuous, truly the most wonderful people ever to have graced the earth. The circuitous redistribution is a feature and not a bug of the system. It prevents competition, which makes shareholders happy. It also provides a minimum standard of care for workers, who would other…
Sounds alright, but then you have noticeably less unskilled and semi-skilled labor demand (possibly as much as 1-4%) in an environment where:
* the long struggle of delegitimising explicit political violence is waning,
* nobody outside of the Club of Rome wants to so much as touch the application of the framing of subsidies and overbuild to the topic of population
* and the math for how UBI interacts with the primary sector is intractable.
What percentage of non-amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps? We all love to hate Amazon, but such statistics are meaningless without context.
~12.6% per: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/food-stamp-... >More than 42 million Americans receive a federal stipend for food through the program formerly known as food stamps.
... Just like Walmart. It's a shame.
It's not, it's mostly a sign that benefits are working. Giving workers benefits /increases/ their compensation because it increases their negotiating power. This means they're earning more than they otherwise would. Not less. If it was less, that would mean benefits are bad and we should take them away!