Many Amazon Warehouse Workers are on Food Stamps

[DamianTV]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/04/21/1634237/many-amazon-warehouse-workers-are-on-food-stamps

Many of Amazon's warehouse workers have to buy their groceries with food stamps through America's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, reports the Intercept.

In Arizona, new data suggests that one in three of the company's own employees depend on SNAP to put food on the table. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the figure appears to be around one in 10. Overall, of five states that responded to a public records request for a list of their top employers of SNAP recipients, Amazon cracked the top 20 in four.

Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table... "The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."

In addition Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps, notes the article, adding that in 2017 Amazon received $1.2 billion in state and local subsidies, while effectively paying no federal income tax.

"The American people are financing Amazon's pursuit of an e-commerce monopoly every step of the way: first, with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements meant to lure fulfillment centers into town, and later with federal transfers to pay for warehouse workers' food."

-----

References on Source article on link at top.

[tod evans]

Many of WalMart's are too....

[A Son of Liberty]

So what?

[tod evans]

So what?

So let's stop the program!

Cold turkey, work or starve.

While we're at it free (tax dollar supported) housing and medical need to go too.

[Origanalist]

So let's stop the program!

Cold turkey, work or starve.

While we're at it free (tax dollar supported) housing and medical need to go too.

You just want people to die.

[tod evans]

You just want people to die.

I don't give a shit if they work and prosper or if they lounge and die.

What I give a shit about is supporting their collective asses.

Same sentiment applies to all government 'workers'..

[TheCount]

K.

[Danke]

You just want people to die.



https://youtu.be/eXWhbUUE4ko

[specsaregood]

Many of WalMart's are too....

And so do many workers at hospitals and nursing homes and all over the place. Hell, MIL was just telling me about an RN at her work that complained about them getting a deli tray for a company event instead of pizza because, "I can buy a deli tray with SNAP."

[Brian4Liberty]

This is tragic. Americans should not have to tolerate such low wages. The government should pay them all a living wage, and they can focus on arts, humanities and social justice.

Immigrants can work in the warehouses.

[Ender]

So let's stop the program!

Cold turkey, work or starve.

While we're at it free (tax dollar supported) housing and medical need to go too.

The problem isn't the "program"- the problem is that we are so submerged in The Matrix and what we think is "reality", that we are clueless to what life ought to be. Working 8-12 hrs a day for The Man is NOT freedom, it's a government prison for all.

Real freedom would be to have the right to travel, roam, own land, learn, exchange, set your own perimeters, be a real entrepreneur, w/o constant gov interference. Most people would do quite well- and all charity would be local.

This 9-5 American Dream, that everyone accepts as "reality". is utter bullshit.

[tod evans]

The problem isn't the "program"- the problem is that we are so submerged in The Matrix and what we think is "reality", that we are clueless to what life ought to be. Working 8-12 hrs a day for The Man is NOT freedom, it's a government prison for all.

Real freedom would be to have the right to travel, roam, own land, learn, exchange, set your own perimeters, be a real entrepreneur, w/o constant gov interference. Most people would do quite well- and all charity would be local.

This 9-5 American Dream, that everyone accepts as "reality". is utter bullshit.

Nobody HAS to work for big business, it's a choice.

Just like nobody has to patronize them either...

The 'free-shit' only enables big business and supports big-gov.

[kahless]

Some of this thread demonstrates why Libertarians will always be 1% and after years of listening to the callous rhetoric and advocating for billionaires instead of the poor masses I am beginning to think maybe rightfully so. Instead of non-government alternatives offered up and calling out Amazon, <some> Libertarians attack poor people and rejoice in their demise while giving Bezo's, a billionaire that is profiting off the backs of taxpayers a free pass.


Later this year, Amazon will begin accepting grocery orders from customers using the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the federal anti-poverty program formerly known as food stamps. As the nation’s largest e-commerce grocer, Amazon stands to profit more than any other retailer when the $70 billion program goes online after an initial eight-state pilot.

Amazon profits off the backs of taxpayers by paying low wages to the point their employees need government assistance to survive and in turn these same employees will use the taxpayer dollars to enrich Amazon further. That is not very Libertarian.

If Libertarians really had compassion for their fellow man and sense of morality, Bezo's would be called out for accepting SNAP and for not providing groceries as charity to their poor employees if they do not want to pay a living wage.

[euphemia]

Nobody HAS to work for big business, it's a choice.

And there is nothing stopping people from taking in roommates or working another job. I know many people who work two jobs, or maybe more.

[Ender]

Nobody HAS to work for big business, it's a choice.

Just like nobody has to patronize them either...

The 'free-$#@!' only enables big business and supports big-gov.

Oh, I agree- and I chose another path.

However, many people don not understand this- plus small businesses are regulated to infinity and beyond, so any chance of real personal success is very limited.

[Zippyjuan]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/30/news/companies/amazon-warehouse-workers/index.html


Amazon wouldn't say how much it pays its workers. But according to data gathered by career website Glassdoor.com, Amazon pays its 20,000 warehouse workers an average hourly wage of about $12, which is below the national average.

Spokeswoman Mary Osako said Glassdoor's numbers are closer to wages for entry-level workers.

She added that the figure also doesn't represent the Amazon worker's entire compensation. Its employees get full benefits and stock awards on top of their salaries. In the past five years, this has added an average of 9% to workers' base pay annually, Osako said.

Amazon also offers to pre-pay up to 95% of tuition for courses for its workers, regardless of whether the skills are relevant to a career at Amazon.

[euphemia]

I have a friend whose husband does package delivery for Amazon. She is a supervisor, and she says he makes more than she does.

[kahless]

Oh, I agree- and I chose another path.

However, many people don not understand this- plus small businesses are regulated to infinity and beyond, so any chance of real personal success is very limited.

+1, out of rep.

Also, limited by monopolies like Amazon who have a history of selling at a loss in some sectors for the entire purpose of putting their competition out of business.

[A Son of Liberty]

Amazon profits off the backs of taxpayers by paying low wages to the point their employees need government assistance to survive and in turn these same employees will use the taxpayer dollars to enrich Amazon further. That is not very Libertarian.

If Libertarians really had compassion for their fellow man and sense of morality, Bezo's would be called out for accepting SNAP and for not providing groceries as charity to their poor employees if they do not want to pay a living wage.

Are you fucking kidding me? You must be a fucking moron.

Labor is worth what it is worth. If the State intervenes in the market and artificially props up the low end of the labor market, how the FUCK is that Amazon's problem?

How is it Amazon's responsibility to pay MORE for labor than it values it?

Jeezus Criminy what is going on here at RPF? Please don't tell me this is what is passing for libertarian around here any more.

[asurfaholic]

Enough people thought that was good enough pay when they took the job, enough to staff the entire operation.

I think the “someone needs to do something” crowd is barking up the wrong tree..

Clearly if government benefits weren’t being handed out to people making a fair wage so freely you wouldn’t have this whole discussion about why amazon employees are on snap.

Some people seem to think that a business should pay more than people are willing to work for if the business is successful.

Lowest guy working for me is making 16. He’s happy, I’m happy. He could probably stand to make 4-5 more, but accepted the wage when i hired him. Other guys negotiate higher.

[angelatc]

So Amazon is getting employment subsidies. Duh.

[angelatc]

Oh, the leftists redefining Libertariamism:


Some of this thread demonstrates why Libertarians will always be 1% and after years of listening to the callous rhetoric and advocating for billionaires instead of the poor masses I am beginning to think maybe rightfully so. Instead of non-government alternatives offered up and calling out Amazon, <some> Libertarians attack poor people and rejoice in their demise while giving Bezo's, a billionaire that is profiting off the backs of taxpayers a free pass.

Compassion has nothing to do with it. Business exists to keep costs low. Nobody will support ending "compassionate" SNAP, so it ends up being a wage subsidy.

Duh.

[tod evans]

Oh, the leftists redefining Libertariamism:



Compassion has nothing to do with it. Business exists to keep costs low. Nobody will support ending "compassionate" SNAP, so it ends up being a wage subsidy.

Duh.

Businesses exist to make a profit, period.

[kahless]

Oh, the leftists redefining Libertariamism:

Compassion has nothing to do with it. Business exists to keep costs low. Nobody will support ending "compassionate" SNAP, so it ends up being a wage subsidy.

Duh.

It is unfortunate that you, "A Son of Liberty" and Libertarians I was calling out equate Libertarianism as a business policy of immorality, advocating for monopolies and growing government as an end result. The expectation that Libertarians advocate for extreme immorality in business is fairly a new thing and perhaps more with the younger generation here.

Believing the largest most profitable monopoly in the history of the world should exercise some morality with it's employees, the communities for which they reside and the taxpayers does not mean one supports government intervention.

In fact your advocating for the opposite and specifically for immorality is why Libertarians fail to make in-roads or success in society which results in calls for government regulation and growing government.

Libertarians need to stop treating monopolies that have a policy of immorality, corporatism and waging economic warfare to eliminate all competition as some Mom and Pop business.

[A Son of Liberty]

It is unfortunate that you, "A Son of Liberty" and Libertarians I was calling out equate Libertarianism as a business policy of immorality, advocating for monopolies and growing government as an end result. The expectation that Libertarians advocate for extreme immorality in business is fairly a new thing and perhaps more with the younger generation here.

Believing the largest most profitable monopoly in the history of the world should exercise some morality with it's employees, the communities for which they reside and the taxpayers does not mean one supports government intervention.

In fact your advocating for the opposite and specifically for immorality is why Libertarians fail to make in-roads or success in society which results in calls for government regulation and growing government.

Libertarians need to stop treating monopolies that have a policy of immorality, corporatism and waging economic warfare to eliminate all competition as some Mom and Pop business.

Oh, I see. You actually are an idiot.

And nice try not quoting me, hoping I wouldn't come back into this thread and respond to your jackassery.

Labor is worth what a business is willing to pay for it and what a laborer is willing to work for it. Period.

If the State intervenes in that transaction, all it does is distort the market. Like everything else.

This is pretty much libertarianism 101, pointless. Unless you're shedding some new light on the topic... in that case, by all means, please do enlighten us. :lol:

Also, please don't use words that you clearly don't know the meaning of

[kahless]

Businesses exist to make a profit, period.

"Greed is good", right?

Businesses exist to make a profit does not mean one should celebrate or support the process in which they do so if it violates the non-aggression principle, is immoral or creates a burden for taxpayers when it is unnecessary.

Moral and immoral people can be Libertarians. It is the immoral people that have set the example of Libertarians that society recognizes and is why the Libertarian party is relegated to < 1%.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is unfortunate that you, "A Son of Liberty" and Libertarians I was calling out equate Libertarianism as a business policy of immorality, advocating for monopolies and growing government as an end result. The expectation that Libertarians advocate for extreme immorality in business is fairly a new thing and perhaps more with the younger generation here.

Believing the largest most profitable monopoly in the history of the world should exercise some morality with it's employees, the communities for which they reside and the taxpayers does not mean one supports government intervention.

In fact your advocating for the opposite and specifically for immorality is why Libertarians fail to make in-roads or success in society which results in calls for government regulation and growing government.

Libertarians need to stop treating monopolies that have a policy of immorality, corporatism and waging economic warfare to eliminate all competition as some Mom and Pop business.

My poor heart bleeds. :rolleyes: Amazon is not a welfare operation. It is a for-profit business. They compensate employees for their labor. If Amazon employees want more money they can do what everyone else does in this situation-get a second job. My sister works for Amazon at a warehouse. She has more than enough time for a second job-she's just too lazy to go find one. Watching TV is more her thing. :p

[Danke]

Businesses exist to make a profit, period.


Even non-profit ones?

Which Amazon practically is.

[TheCount]

Jeezus Criminy what is going on here at RPF? Please don't tell me this is what is passing for libertarian around here any more.
The Washington Post says mean things about Trump.

Bezos owns both the Washington Post and Amazon.

Therefore, Trump and his Trumpkins see Amazon as an enemy of the state.


That's all this is, a continuation of the propaganda attacks started by the president. That's why he ordered Amazon to be investigated despite all evidence to the contrary. Expect to see much more of this, all targeted at Amazon as if they are the only company in the country whose employees use (fill in the blank government program) and/or which ships its products via USPS.

[kahless]

Oh, I see. You actually are an idiot.

And nice try not quoting me, hoping I wouldn't come back into this thread and respond to your jackassery.

Labor is worth what a business is willing to pay for it and what a laborer is willing to work for it. Period.

If the State intervenes in that transaction, all it does is distort the market. Like everything else.

This is pretty much libertarianism 101, pointless. Unless you're shedding some new light on the topic... in that case, by all means, please do enlighten us. :lol:

Also, please don't use words that you clearly don't know the meaning of

You lost the privilege of a reply and a quote right off the bat when you stooped to name calling. Good job proving my example and showing your immorality for all to see here.

If you bothered to actually read my replies there was no advocating for state interaction, quite the opposite and blame immoral libertarians like you why I do not already live in a Libertarian society living free on my land. It is those of you that advocate immorality as policy in business affairs that ruin it for the rest of us because you saw it on TV and cannot think for yourself, yet you call me the moron.

Done with you.

[nikcers]

barking up the wrong tree..
Its all big businesses fault that we have stagflation and people can't afford rising cost of living. Its not all the monetization of debt that increases prices, pay no attention to that, that lowers the cost of things.

[A Son of Liberty]

You lost the privilege of a reply and a quote right off the bat when you stooped to name calling. Good job proving my example and showing your immorality for all to see here.

If you bothered to actually read my replies there was no advocating for state interaction, quite the opposite and blame immoral libertarians like you why I do not already live in a Libertarian society living free on my land. It is those of you that advocate immorality as policy in business affairs that ruin it for the rest of us because you saw it on TV and cannot think for yourself, yet you call me the moron.

Done with you.

You're breaking my heart, honey.

There is nothing immoral about paying for labor what you consider it to be worth, and at a rate that laborers are willing to work for.

Q. E. D.

But perch up there upon your righteous indignation. No one cares.

[kahless]

My poor heart bleeds. :rolleyes: Amazon is not a welfare operation. It is a for-profit business. They compensate employees for their labor. If Amazon employees want more money they can do what everyone else does in this situation-get a second job. My sister works for Amazon at a warehouse. She has more than enough time for a second job-she's just too lazy to go find one. Watching TV is more her thing. :p

Go ahead and continue to consider Amazon like it is just any run of the mill company and turn a blind eye. All hail our Amazon overlords, right?

Just turn a blind eye to them advocating for all 9600 tax jurisdictions to have internet taxing authority over us. Nah that will not be abused and we have to support Amazon because of it's great UI, right?

[kahless]

There is nothing immoral about paying for labor what you consider it to be worth, and at a rate that laborers are willing to work for.


That is not in dispute retard. It is your immorality I was calling out.

[nikcers]

That is not in dispute retard. It is your immorality I was calling out.
Capitalist scum! :rolleyes:

[kahless]

Capitalist scum! :rolleyes:

You can be a Capitalist and be moral. You can also be a Capitalist and be immoral. Which one are you?

Pre-80's morality in business was seen as a virtue and immorality not condoned. I do not sign on to where immorality is a requirement to be Libertarian Capitalist.

[kahless]

The Washington Post says mean things about Trump.

Bezos owns both the Washington Post and Amazon.

Therefore, Trump and his Trumpkins see Amazon as an enemy of the state.

That's all this is, a continuation of the propaganda attacks started by the president. That's why he ordered Amazon to be investigated despite all evidence to the contrary. Expect to see much more of this, all targeted at Amazon as if they are the only company in the country whose employees use (fill in the blank government program) and/or which ships its products via USPS.

My calling out Amazon for what they are pre-dates Trump here.

Marketplace Fairness Act attacks e-commerce
03-20-2013, 03:48 PM

They should just rename it as the "Amazon-Walmart Small Business Killer Act".

03-20-2013, 03:48 PM

Call your Senators
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

No National Internet Tax Petition to: My U.S. Representative and Senators (From Campaign For Liberty Email)
http://www.chooseliberty.org/internet_tax.aspx

[angelatc]

Libertarians need to stop treating monopolies that have a policy of immorality, corporatism and waging economic warfare to eliminate all competition as some Mom and Pop business.

Preaching about morality is pretty much the antithesis of libertarian. Those poor people are the thieves - they're the ones who decided it was morally acceptable to take tax money instead of seek an employer to pay them higher wages.

[angelatc]

You're breaking my heart, honey.

There is nothing immoral about paying for labor what you consider it to be worth, and at a rate that laborers are willing to work for.

Q. E. D.

But perch up there upon your righteous indignation. No one cares.

But but but his FEELZ!

[tod evans]

"Greed is good", right?


How do you equate profit with greed?

I'm interested to see your response...

[angelatc]

"Greed is good", right?


I chortled when I saw you use that quote right after waxing nostalgic about the morality of the '80's.

Everybody is greedy. Go watch some Friedman.

[Origanalist]

You're breaking my heart, honey.

There is nothing immoral about paying for labor what you consider it to be worth, and at a rate that laborers are willing to work for.

Q. E. D.

But perch up there upon your righteous indignation. No one cares.

I care, really. I'm quivering with remorse as I type this.

[nikcers]

I care, really. I'm quivering with remorse as I type this.
Buyers remorse is tough, I have been struggling with it for a while now. I consider it one of the most coveted of first world problems.

[kahless]

Preaching about morality is pretty much the antithesis of libertarian.

No. A libertarian can be whatever they want and preach whatever they want, that is the whole point. The question I have is why is there a movement that insists that Libertarians be immoral in business and their interactions? To me that sounds very much like it is an intentional establishment scam to deter adoption of the philosophy. A philosophy adopted by many charitable Christians and Christians sects with their own sects of the philosophy.



Those poor people are the thieves - they're the ones who decided it was morally acceptable to take tax money instead of seek an employer to pay them higher wages.

So we attack people that have little choice in that matter rather than the largest profitable company in the history of the world that could make a charitable difference with their own employees rather than the employees a burden to the taxpayers.

This is an imperfect world and people are imperfect. You expect poor people to stick to a philosophy to not take money from government when they are desperate? Amazon is not in a desperate situation and does have the ability to prevent more people added to the welfare rolls, but you give them a free pass?

[kahless]

How do you equate profit with greed?

I'm interested to see your response...

Gorden Gecko quote, thought it was obvious to the discussion.

[VIDEODROME]

All hail our Amazon overlords, right?



Overlords... Or modern Robber Barons?

I think you make a good point on the morality of this type of business behavior.

[angelatc]

This is an imperfect world and people are imperfect. You expect poor people to stick to a philosophy to not take money from government when they are desperate? Amazon is not in a desperate situation and does have the ability to prevent more people added to the welfare rolls, but you give them a free pass?

The difference here is that I don't think that some people can and should be bullied and shamed for predictably acting in their own self-interests, while others should be coddled and forgiven for the same behavior.

[nikcers]

Overlords... Or modern Robber Barons?

I think you make a good point on the morality of this type of business behavior.
Big business used to be a check against government power but when government puts power up for sale big business becomes the government. I thought that was what the whole libertarian movement was about, stopping the government from selling power to business by all means, even if that means taking power we gave government away. I always that there could be a balance between anarchy and libertarianism and that is a government that is locally elected so that it is more accountable to the people.

[kahless]

The difference here is that I don't think that some people can and should be bullied and shamed for predictably acting in their own self-interests, while others should be coddled and forgiven for the same behavior.

That works both ways.

[TheCount]

My calling out Amazon for what they are pre-dates Trump here.

Marketplace Fairness Act attacks e-commerce
03-20-2013, 03:48 PM


03-20-2013, 03:48 PM
That's nice, dear.

[angelatc]

Overlords... Or modern Robber Barons?

I think you make a good point on the morality of this type of business behavior.

Why is it immoral to pay the market price for labor? Doesn't management have a moral obligation to protect the interests of the investors and the customers as well? Who gets to decide which moral obligation is superior?

[tod evans]

Who gets to decide which moral obligation is superior?

Depends on which side of the table you sit on.

[kahless]

Why is it immoral to pay the market price for labor? Doesn't management have a moral obligation to protect the interests of the investors and the customers as well? Who gets to decide which moral obligation is superior?

My 2 cents. It is not immoral to pay the market price for labor and no one is advocating against protecting the interests of investors and customers. Amazon however is in a unique position to balance their interests so their employees are not a burden to the taxpayers. (Such as charitable credit to the grocery stores for their employees)

They could probably do it off the profit they make from the floating interest from internet tax collection. More so when the legislation they are promoting passes and it will unless Trump has a real backbone in standing up to Bezo's. That is if his opposition to him is not all talk. Oddly however Trump almost sounds like he is flirting exactly with what Bezo's wants.

[angelatc]

That works both ways.

The big difference here is that I'm advocating for free market labor prices and against subsidies. I have no need to impose my morality on others.

[specsaregood]

Why is it immoral to pay the market price for labor? Doesn't management have a moral obligation to protect the interests of the investors and the customers as well? Who gets to decide which moral obligation is superior?

John Mackey was/is a big proponent of the "conscious capitalism" theory that it isn't all about profit. And he was very successful with WF with that model for a long time. Still here we are in 2018 and he was forced to sell out his company to Amazon after coming under attack by the profits-only capitalists that were on the verge of snookering his company out from under him....

[angelatc]

It is not immoral to pay the market price for labor and no one is advocating against protecting the interests of investors and customers. Amazon however is in a unique position to balance their interests so their employees are not a burden to the taxpayers. (Such as charitable credit to the grocery stores for their employees)

Why should Amazon care about the taxpayers?

[angelatc]

John Mackey was/is a big proponent of the "conscious capitalism" theory that it isn't all about profit. And he was very successful with WF with that model for a long time. Still here we are in 2018 and he was forced to sell out his company to Amazon after coming under attack by the profits-only capitalists that were on the verge of snookering his company out from under him....

My husband was a regional director for Whole Foods. I can assure you they were 100% about profit. The things they did to their vendors were horrible, they didn't hesitate to accept food stamps, and he sold his company because organic was becoming less and less niche every year.

[specsaregood]

My husband was a regional director for Whole Foods. I can assure you they were 100% about profit. The things they did to their vendors were horrible, they didn't hesitate to accept food stamps, and he sold his company because organic was becoming less and less niche every year.

I'm sure you know more about it than I; I'm just saying the philosophy he promoted publically. And they he was under attack by activist investor groups trying to get WF to leave their niche more.

[nikcers]

Who gets to decide which moral obligation is superior?
The people that get to write the regulations. They decide the m-f work week, the amount of ethanol in our gas and how long we stay a war with Afghanistan.

[kahless]

The big difference here is that I'm advocating for free market labor prices and against subsidies. I have no need to impose my morality on others.

In most cases I agree. We are however discussing the largest monopoly in the history of the world that is waging economic warfare by targeting specific sectors and selling at a loss until all their competitors are put out of business in that sector. This is elimination of the free market.

While they do so they are partnering with government to pass the internet tax which will be impossible for anyone other than a monopoly to manage. A policy that could subject a business to a tax audit from any of the 9600 US tax jurisdictions. It is a small/medium size business killer and no doubt will be used by some jurisdictions politically against out of state businesses that do not comply with their philosophy.

Amazon is more of a threat to individual liberty than any of the so called foreign policy threats.

[VIDEODROME]

In most cases I agree. We are however discussing the largest monopoly in the history of the world that is waging economic warfare by targeting specific sectors and selling at a loss until all their competitors are put out of business in that sector. This is elimination of the free market.
.

What does the fair market price for labor mean, when a company owns the market?

[DamianTV]

The big problem is that these people pay taxes. So they are paying govt to pay for their own food stamps. Basically buying their own chains of slavery.

[kahless]

What does the fair market price for labor mean, when a company owns the market?

Good point. +1, out of rep.

[DamianTV]

Good point. +1, out of rep.

Covered!

[nikcers]

A fair price is whatever both parties are willing to pay, I disagree that markets can be owned, you can temporarily flood markets with capital but its like inflating a tire with a hole in it, unless you keep inflating it there is no real there there. That's the whole point of being against interventionism because you know that there is no interventionism that is moral because there is always a correction that occurs after the mal-investment gets liquidated. The people that get hurt though are never the Amazons, they would be the ones that would win from any government moral corrections.

[ChaosControl]

Opposition to government interference is no excuse for defending Amazon and their anti employee practices. Corporations are just as bad as bad as the government and need to be held to the same standards of scepticism.

It is pathetic when Amazon, Walmart and others pay such poor wages that their employees are forced onto food stamps. That just means we the tax payers are subsidizing Amazon. Yet people do not ridicule Amazon for their bad practices but rather ridicule the workers just trying to make a living? Is this some kind of joke? Sound like a bunch of Mitt Romney wannabees.

Working two full time jobs? Yeah screw living a balanced life where you have satisfaction. Make everyone work every minute of their waking hours to survive. Great platform to lure in support.

Not everyone has the freedom to just quit and find a better job. Not everyone has bargaining power to get better wages? Why would you side with the dominating party? I really do not understand the mindset. An employer-employee relationship should be equal but it is not. The employer more often than not has the power and dictates the wage. The employee generally has no choice but to accept. It is so bad and one sided that programs like food stamps even exist to begin with. If employers paid a reasonable wage such programs would have no purpose. So if you are angry about these welfare programs then attack the real root of the problem which is greedy corporations. Obviously I am not including all businesses as some pay fair wages and treat their employees well and others do the best they can. But Amazon and Walmart? No, those are not good corps.

[angelatc]

The people that get to write the regulations. They decide the m-f work week, the amount of ethanol in our gas and how long we stay a war with Afghanistan.

But I don't think those things should be regulated. Well, the war thing can be regulated away asap, but the free market should be the final arbiter in all these other things things.

[angelatc]

Opposition to government interference is no excuse for defending Amazon and their anti employee practices. Corporations are just as bad as bad as the government and need to be held to the same standards of scepticism.

It is pathetic when Amazon, Walmart and others pay such poor wages that their employees are forced onto food stamps. That just means we the tax payers are subsidizing Amazon. Yet people do not ridicule Amazon for their bad practices but rather ridicule the workers just trying to make a living? Is this some kind of joke? Sound like a bunch of Mitt Romney wannabees.

Working two full time jobs? Yeah screw living a balanced life where you have satisfaction. Make everyone work every minute of their waking hours to survive. Great platform to lure in support.

Not everyone has the freedom to just quit and find a better job. Not everyone has bargaining power to get better wages? Why would you side with the dominating party? I really do not understand the mindset. An employer-employee relationship should be equal but it is not. The employer more often than not has the power and dictates the wage. The employee generally has no choice but to accept. It is so bad and one sided that programs like food stamps even exist to begin with. If employers paid a reasonable wage such programs would have no purpose. So if you are angry about these welfare programs then attack the real root of the problem which is greedy corporations. Obviously I am not including all businesses as some pay fair wages and treat their employees well and others do the best they can. But Amazon and Walmart? No, those are not good corps.

Wages are a commodity. Prices rise and fall with demand. If you want higher wages, you have to specialize. There's no way around economic law.

[angelatc]

What does the fair market price for labor mean, when a company owns the market?

Are you implying that Amazon owns the labor market?

[tod evans]

Opposition to government interference is no excuse for defending Amazon and their anti employee practices. Corporations are just as bad as bad as the government and need to be held to the same standards of scepticism.

It is pathetic when Amazon, Walmart and others pay such poor wages that their employees are forced onto food stamps. That just means we the tax payers are subsidizing Amazon. Yet people do not ridicule Amazon for their bad practices but rather ridicule the workers just trying to make a living? Is this some kind of joke? Sound like a bunch of Mitt Romney wannabees.

Working two full time jobs? Yeah screw living a balanced life where you have satisfaction. Make everyone work every minute of their waking hours to survive. Great platform to lure in support.

Not everyone has the freedom to just quit and find a better job. Not everyone has bargaining power to get better wages? Why would you side with the dominating party? I really do not understand the mindset. An employer-employee relationship should be equal but it is not. The employer more often than not has the power and dictates the wage. The employee generally has no choice but to accept. It is so bad and one sided that programs like food stamps even exist to begin with. If employers paid a reasonable wage such programs would have no purpose. So if you are angry about these welfare programs then attack the real root of the problem which is greedy corporations. Obviously I am not including all businesses as some pay fair wages and treat their employees well and others do the best they can. But Amazon and Walmart? No, those are not good corps.

I'll beg to disagree....

There're generations now of food stamp recipients who only 'get a job' to either satisfy other free shit mandates or parole mandates..

Food stamps exist not because of poor wages but because people don't or won't work to feed themselves, it's easier to jump through bureaucratic hoops than to carry hod or muck stalls..

Cut that shit off! Fire all the government employees involved and see how quickly things change for the better...

[specsaregood]

It is pathetic when Amazon, Walmart and others pay such poor wages that their employees are forced onto food stamps. That just means we the tax payers are subsidizing Amazon. Yet people do not ridicule Amazon for their bad practices but rather ridicule the workers just trying to make a living? Is this some kind of joke? Sound like a bunch of Mitt Romney wannabees.


It is amusing that you are singling out Amazon and Walmart. The truth is that such unskilled workers for almost any business are on or eligible for food stamps. Especially if they have children.

http://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dfd/images/photo_library/njsnap_povnumbs_17.gif

[angelatc]

The big problem is that these people pay taxes. So they are paying govt to pay for their own food stamps. Basically buying their own chains of slavery.

People who get food stamps do not pay taxes. They make contributions to their social security theft, but as a general rule they get refunds that exceed the amounts of income tax that were withheld over the course of the year.

You guys are delusional if you think that Amazon, WalMart and any other employer is going to pay a single penny over market wages.

This noise is just union propaganda - they failed at unionizing WalMart, so now they're going to try to weasel their way into Amazon. Bezos is a prog though, so he'll probably allow it. Snicker.

[ChaosControl]

Wages are a commodity. Prices rise and fall with demand. If you want higher wages, you have to specialize. There's no way around economic law.

Not an easily attainable option for all. I am satisfied with my own situation and enjoy my job. But not everyone has that luxury for various reasons. Expecting a floor is not really unreasonable especially from mega corps with billionaire executives. If the corps dont pay reasonable wages the government will fill the role by way of necessity as charity generally cannot make up the slack since it is so one sided. If corporations paid reasonable wages then charity could cover the other situations where assistance is required. A lot of people fall on bad situations or just have no options from the beginning. Working hard to get out of a situation is not as simple as it may sound for many, especially if they have kids to support.

[angelatc]

I'll beg to disagree....

There're generations now of food stamp recipients who only 'get a job' to either satisfy other free shit mandates or parole mandates..

Food stamps exist not because of poor wages but because people don't or won't work to feed themselves, it's easier to jump through bureaucratic hoops than to carry hod or muck stalls..

Cut that shit off! Fire all the government employees involved and see how quickly things change for the better...

Plus rep. Enough of the "these poor people can't take care of themselves!" nonsense. Freaking Mexicans walk 1200 miles and find jobs in a country where they don't even speak the language. They don't qualify for food stamps, yet I haven't seen their starved corpses on the side of the road.

[ChaosControl]

It is amusing that you are singling out Amazon and Walmart. The truth is that such unskilled workers for almost any business are on or eligible for food stamps.

I realize that. They just happen to be two of the most known corporations. The thing is even these unskilled workers are fulfilling a need and working the same just as anyone else. It is not unreasonable to expect they be compensated in a way they can actually live a decent life.

But yes the anger should be directed at the overall situation of unequal power between employer and employee rather than just two well known corporations.

[tod evans]

Not an easily attainable option for all. I am satisfied with my own situation and enjoy my job. But not everyone has that luxury for various reasons. Expecting a floor is not really unreasonable especially from mega corps with billionaire executives. If the corps dont pay reasonable wages the government will fill the role by way of necessity as charity generally cannot make up the slack since it is so one sided. If corporations paid reasonable wages then charity could cover the other situations where assistance is required. A lot of people fall on bad situations or just have no options from the beginning. Working hard to get out of a situation is not as simple as it may sound for many, especially if they have kids to support.

You mean like all the divorced fathers who pay out up to 40% of their gross to an ex who 'works' and collects food stamps?

Executives be damned, cut the free shit programs and watch how quickly the traditional family reemerges....

[angelatc]

Not an easily attainable option for all. I am satisfied with my own situation and enjoy my job. But not everyone has that luxury for various reasons. Expecting a floor is not really unreasonable especially from mega corps with billionaire executives. If the corps dont pay reasonable wages the government will fill the role by way of necessity as charity generally cannot make up the slack since it is so one sided. If corporations paid reasonable wages then charity could cover the other situations where assistance is required. A lot of people fall on bad situations or just have no options from the beginning. Working hard to get out of a situation is not as simple as it may sound for many, especially if they have kids to support.

Not the problem of the employer, and not the responsibility of the federal government. Here's a hint: price floors create a surplus.

[VIDEODROME]

Why is it immoral to pay the market price for labor? Doesn't management have a moral obligation to protect the interests of the investors and the customers as well? Who gets to decide which moral obligation is superior?

Arent't the employees investors or stakeholders in a way? At least if they hope to be there a while providing labor and earning income long term while taking care of the facility and equipment?

Is the local community even a stakeholder for inviting this behemoth warehouse to build there with the idea of using up so much of their available land will provide decent jobs?

Maybe the mistake is small towns looking to better their local economies trusted in Amazon, but instead of receiving an economic benefit, they feel exploited.

[angelatc]

Arent't the employees investors or stakeholders in a way?

No. Labor is a commodity.

[The Rebel Poet]

Canned response #1: "all poor people are lazy, because it's not possible to be poor unless you're lazy."

Canned response #2 "employers have a moral obligation to pay whatever a person needs to live, regardless of what their labor is worth."

This is why we can't have nice things.

[kahless]

Opposition to government interference is no excuse for defending Amazon and their anti employee practices. Corporations are just as bad as bad as the government and need to be held to the same standards of scepticism.

It is pathetic when Amazon, Walmart and others pay such poor wages that their employees are forced onto food stamps. That just means we the tax payers are subsidizing Amazon. Yet people do not ridicule Amazon for their bad practices but rather ridicule the workers just trying to make a living? Is this some kind of joke? Sound like a bunch of Mitt Romney wannabees.

Working two full time jobs? Yeah screw living a balanced life where you have satisfaction. Make everyone work every minute of their waking hours to survive. Great platform to lure in support.

Not everyone has the freedom to just quit and find a better job. Not everyone has bargaining power to get better wages? Why would you side with the dominating party? I really do not understand the mindset. An employer-employee relationship should be equal but it is not. The employer more often than not has the power and dictates the wage. The employee generally has no choice but to accept. It is so bad and one sided that programs like food stamps even exist to begin with. If employers paid a reasonable wage such programs would have no purpose. So if you are angry about these welfare programs then attack the real root of the problem which is greedy corporations. Obviously I am not including all businesses as some pay fair wages and treat their employees well and others do the best they can. But Amazon and Walmart? No, those are not good corps.

Spot on. I would specifically however indicate monopolies as the culprit rather than "corporations" which can mean anyone even a very small unprofitable businesss. A local business can be more easily boycotted if they are immoral with their employees to affect change to their behavior rather than these large monopolies.

The monopolies are stifling the free market system while dictating - owning politicians in multiple jurisdictions to enact oppressive tax policies to benefit them over the rest of us.

[tod evans]

Arent't the employees investors or stakeholders in a way? At least if they hope to be there a while providing labor and earning income long term while taking care of the facility and equipment?

Is the local community even a stakeholder for inviting this behemoth warehouse to build there with the idea of using up so much of their available land will provide decent jobs?

Maybe the mistake is small towns looking to better their local economies trusted in Amazon, but instead of receiving an economic benefit, they feel exploited.

I read an article from the UK whining about Amazon but can't recall any from this side of the pond, do you have one you're particularity fond of?

[angelatc]

Canned response #1: "all poor people are lazy, because it's not possible to be poor unless you're lazy."

Canned response #2 "employers have a moral obligation to pay whatever a person needs to live, regardless of what their labor is worth."

This is why we can't have nice things.

Nobody said poor people are lazy. What I am saying is that markets determine wages, and there's no such thing as a "reasonable" wage.

[VIDEODROME]

Are you implying that Amazon owns the labor market?

They have such a large presence, they probably set the standard which their few competitors will follow. In some cases if they build a Warehouse in a small community, they probably do dominate the local labor market.

[angelatc]

They have such a large presence, they probably set the standard which their few competitors will follow. In some cases if they build a Warehouse in a small community, they probably do dominate the local labor market.

So the answer then is no, Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on labor.

Like I said above, Mexicans can walk from Baja to Birmingham and find work. But Americans can't travel 200 miles to improve their own lives? Like Tom Woods said, I'd be freaking embarrassed if I was so worthless I worked at a place for a decade and couldn't convince a single person anywhere that I was worth more than minimum wage.

[VIDEODROME]

This noise is just union propaganda - they failed at unionizing WalMart, so now they're going to try to weasel their way into Amazon. Bezos is a prog though, so he'll probably allow it. Snicker.

At least with Labor Unions you just have 2 parties negotiate wages and the Union gives the workers more leverage against a big company like Amazon. The role of government at that point would be to enforce the contract they sign.

[heavenlyboy34]

They have such a large presence, they probably set the standard which their few competitors will follow. In some cases if they build a Warehouse in a small community, they probably do dominate the local labor market.

There's this thing called the Division of Labor, bro. Amazon isn't going to magically suck people up into jobs they don't want just to destroy the community. *dramatic Michael Moore-esque scene here* Amazon jobs are low-skill and even in small communities would only draw people who are interested in such work anyway. And since value is subjective, we know plenty of people value working locally over working for national brands.

[VIDEODROME]

So the answer then is no, Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on labor.

Like I said above, Mexicans can walk from Baja to Birmingham and find work. But Americans can't travel 200 miles to improve their own lives? Like Tom Woods said, I'd be freaking embarrassed if I was so worthless I worked at a place for a decade and couldn't convince a single person anywhere that I was worth more than minimum wage.

So if these Mexicans are working so much harder than lazy Americans, will they're wages go up dramatically when they're managers recognize their high labor value?

[TheCount]

Arent't the employees investors or stakeholders in a way?

...

Is the local community even a stakeholder for inviting this behemoth warehouse to build there with the idea of using up so much of their available land will provide decent jobs?


They're both stakeholders in that they have some leverage over the company, and a wise company will seek to keep both groups content for maximum productivity and good PR.


They also have an interest in attracting the employer to the area as well as keeping its operations in the area, and therefore must offer the employer labor, land, etc. at a competitive price. What would the employees and local community rather have: no warehouse and no jobs, or a warehouse and moderate-to-poor quality jobs? These warehouses are not being placed on prime real estate in nice locations; that area is selected because the labor and land is cheap and for few other reasons (access to highways, markets, etc).


If all of the other companies in the market are benefiting from government subsidy of their employees' wages through welfare programs, should this company put itself out of business trying to do otherwise? Is that better for the employees?

[tod evans]

So if these Mexicans are working so much harder than lazy Americans, will they're wages go up dramatically when they're managers recognize their high labor value?

Wages reflect what you produce.......................Unless you work for government.

[kahless]

It is amusing that you are singling out Amazon and Walmart. The truth is that such unskilled workers for almost any business are on or eligible for food stamps. Especially if they have children.

http://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dfd/images/photo_library/njsnap_povnumbs_17.gif

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

[Zippyjuan]

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

It has worked out well for the Waltons (WalMart).

[kahless]

It has worked out well for the Waltons (WalMart).

Yep, some here will give them cover to. They are detrimental to individual liberty.

[TheCount]

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

The reason that Amazon is in the position that it is in, and has the wealth that it does, is because Jeff Bezos didn't give away all of the 'extra' money that he made. Also, if he did what you said, then some other company would immediately emerge to be Amazon 2.0, minus "Kahless Says You Gotta Be Nice" and guess what would happen?


Also, relevant meme:

https://i.imgur.com/4auOnKW.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

Amazon is an arm of the powers that be, the people who designed the system to socialize their costs and privatize all the profits, more government is not the solution but they deserve criticism and any private efforts to avoid using them.

AnCaps are all too willing to defend the oligarchs' left hand as long as it wears a sock puppet that is labeled "private enterprise".

[Danke]

The reason that Amazon is in the position that it is in, and has the wealth that it does, is because Jeff Bezos didn't give away all of the 'extra' money that he made. Also, if he did what you said, then some other company would immediately emerge to be Amazon 2.0, minus "Kahless Says You Gotta Be Nice" and guess what would happen?


Also, relevant meme:

https://i.imgur.com/4auOnKW.jpg

His company wasn't making money for years (still isn't in its core business) , just people investing in it.

[angelatc]

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

Option C - Nothing. Labor is a commodity, the price rises and falls with demand.

[kahless]

The reason that Amazon is in the position that it is in, and has the wealth that it does, is because Jeff Bezos didn't give away all of the 'extra' money that he made. Also, if he did what you said, then some other company would immediately emerge to be Amazon 2.0, minus "Kahless Says You Gotta Be Nice" and guess what would happen?

Jeff Bezo's wealth 119.4 billion USD.

Yet his employees are on food stamps. If you have that kind of wealth and allow the taxpayers to pick the tab so your employees do not starve then you are a scumbag piece of shit with money.

Every post you made in reply to me indicates you support growing government and/or scumbaggery.

[angelatc]

Yep, some here will give them cover to. They are detrimental to individual liberty.

That's absurd.

[kahless]

Option C - Nothing. Labor is a commodity, the price rises and falls with demand.

You do realize we are dealing with a unique historic monopoly entity such as Amazon, right?


That's absurd.

You clearly are giving Amazon/Bezo's cover.

[euphemia]

People can always improve their skills and get better jobs.

[Swordsmyth]

It must be amusing to the oligarchs to see that even some of the sheep that decry the dogs and the butcher defend the shearer.

[kahless]

People can always improve their skills and get better jobs.

Monopolies taking over business sectors with help of their government counterparts make that more unlikely every passing day.

[kahless]

Amazon is an arm of the powers that be, the people who designed the system to socialize their costs and privatize all the profits, more government is not the solution but they deserve criticism and any private efforts to avoid using them.

AnCaps are all too willing to defend the oligarchs' left hand as long as it wears a sock puppet that is labeled "private enterprise".

Exactly.

[euphemia]

Monopolies taking over business sectors with help of their government counterparts make that more unlikely every passing day.

I don't know about that. I guess they had the same opportunities I had. People can't wait until adulthood to begin being responsible. Education is the means to a better way of life. If students don't take advantage of the opportunities they have when they have them, it's really too bad.

[TheCount]

His company wasn't making money for years (still isn't in its core business) , just people investing in it.

They're investing based on its perceived future competitiveness, future market share, and future profit.

All of which would be jeopardized if Comrade Kahless were its CEO.

[kahless]

I don't know about that. I guess they had the same opportunities I had. People can't wait until adulthood to begin being responsible. Education is the means to a better way of life. If students don't take advantage of the opportunities they have when they have them, it's really too bad.

Which is all well and good unless the monopoly eliminates those opportunities or by design eliminates it to a select few.

[kahless]

They're investing based on its perceived future competitiveness, future market share, and future profit.

All of which would be jeopardized if Comrade Kahless were its CEO.

Amazon dominating our economic system has become a competing government within the borders of the US. Your advocacy of Amazon makes you more closer to a Communist than I who is simply calling out their immorality while promoting Capitalism in an forum that is supposed to promote individual liberty and free markets. Which obviously with each your replies to me in the last year you repeatedly oppose.

[VIDEODROME]

Wages reflect what you produce.......................Unless you work for government.

That doesn't seem to bear out at the top end where many executives seem ridiculously overpaid.

Even the bankruptcy negotiations for Toys R Us includes millions in bonuses to executives of a failed company. Sometimes the upper class seems to walk a fine line between investment and plunder.

[TheCount]

You do realize we are dealing with a unique historic monopoly entity such as Amazon, right?

Holy shit, read a history book sometime. Amazon has nowhere near the levels of government power that the robber barons did, and beyond that they have nowhere near the government influence that the current MIC has. It's not even close. You want to talk unique historic monopolies? Let's talk about United Launch Alliance. $1B per year direct government handout before charges for any launches.

As for monopolies, there is nothing, nothing that Amazon sells that you cannot get somewhere else. Often it's cheaper elsewhere as well.

[heavenlyboy34]

Holy shit, read a history book sometime. Amazon has nowhere near the levels of government power that the robber barons did, and beyond that they have nowhere near the government influence that the current MIC has. It's not even close. You want to talk unique historic monopolies? Let's talk about United Launch Alliance. $1B per year direct government handout before charges for any launches.

As for monopolies, there is nothing, nothing that Amazon sells that you cannot get somewhere else. Often it's cheaper elsewhere as well.

This^^ People buy from Amazon for the brand and convenience. Plenty of times I've bought from ebay, etc because the item in question was cheaper.

[heavenlyboy34]

That doesn't seem to bear out at the top end where many executives seem ridiculously overpaid.

Even the bankruptcy negotiations for Toys R Us includes millions in bonuses to executives of a failed company. Sometimes the upper class seems to walk a fine line between investment and plunder.
"Seem" being the key word. They may well offer the value to the company they get paid for all you know. What people earn in the private sector is none of your damn business.

[kahless]

Holy shit, read a history book sometime. Amazon has nowhere near the levels of government power that the robber barons did, and beyond that they have nowhere near the government influence that the current MIC has. It's not even close. You want to talk unique historic monopolies? Let's talk about United Launch Alliance. $1B per year direct government handout before charges for any launches.

As for monopolies, there is nothing, nothing that Amazon sells that you cannot get somewhere else. Often it's cheaper elsewhere as well.

This is again giving cover to Amazon in the thread and oh wait there it is. I knew you would eventually go right back to MIC - the military industrial complex. No matter the subject you bring it right back to MIC. Now it is not that I disagree with allot the objections that comes up here about MIC but you have to wonder when no matter the subject is you divert the topic to off topic MIC which is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Danke]

"Seem" being the key word. They may well offer the value to the company they get paid for all you know. What people earn in the private sector is none of your damn business.


we have a "private sector?" news to me.

[kahless]

we have a "private sector?" news to me.

I wish I lived in the same world that some RPF'er's believe we actually live in.

[VIDEODROME]

"Seem" being the key word. They may well offer the value to the company they get paid for all you know. What people earn in the private sector is none of your damn business.

Doesn't it become the People's interest if a company is going before the courts because they're in such a mess?

[TheCount]

This is again giving cover to Amazon in the thread and oh wait there it is. I knew you would eventually go right back to MIC - the military industrial complex. No matter the subject you bring it right back to MIC. Now it is not that I disagree with allot the objections that comes up here about MIC but you have to wonder when no matter the subject is you divert the topic to off topic MIC which is irrelevant to the discussion.

What in the hell are you talking about? I gave two examples, one historical and one present day. Undoubtedly if I'd just mentioned the robber barons you'd dismiss that too. You're just throwing up some bullshit because you have zero argument.



This^^ People buy from Amazon for the brand and convenience. Plenty of times I've bought from ebay, etc because the item in question was cheaper.

Just today I ordered something from Amazon which I could've gotten from eBay or Alibaba for half the price. The other options were your typical $0.99 'snail mail from China' deal, and I was willing to pay the extra $5 to get the thing in two days rather than two months.

[kahless]

What in the hell are you talking about? I gave two examples, one historical and one present day. Undoubtedly if I'd just mentioned the robber barons you'd dismiss that too. You're just throwing up some bullshit because you have zero argument.

Just today I ordered something from Amazon which I could've gotten from eBay or Alibaba for half the price. The other options were your typical $0.99 'snail mail from China' deal, and I was willing to pay the extra $5 to get the thing in two days rather than two months.

You fail to recognize the magnitude for which there is no comparison. What I do know is you give monopolies and big government cover here when I post here to call it out.

[VIDEODROME]

You fail to recognize the magnitude for which there is no comparison. What I do know is you give monopolies and big government cover here when I post here to call it out.

Maybe what kahless is referring doesn't mean just raw Government influence like the Robber Barons? Is Amazon in fact so big that they don't need much from government other than to stay out of their way?

Amazon might be considered historic from that financial resources and their huge presence on the net which is a different kind of power. I'm not sure if any other company is comparable for having this much of a presence without really having a brick and mortar storefront.

[angelatc]

You do realize we are dealing with a unique historic monopoly entity such as Amazon, right?



No, we aren't. They aren't a monopoly by any definition of the word. They aren't unique, either.

[kahless]

Maybe what kahless is referring doesn't mean just raw Government influence like the Robber Barons? Is Amazon in fact so big that they don't need much from government other than to stay out of their way?

Amazon might be considered historic from that financial resources and their huge presence on the net which is a different kind of power. I'm not sure if any other company is comparable for having this much of a presence without really having a brick and mortar storefront.

Not exactly. I believe Amazon has become a single source in several sectors due to their tactics of selling below cost to eliminate competition. While having achieved that they are using government to institute a tax policy that is detrimental to some by providing ideologs the power in 9600 or so jurisdictions to misuse their political advocacy to censor or destroy those that oppose their ideology through audits. A policy they achieved by buying off politicians in multiple regions. Something not typically possible by small regional businesses.

They are ultimately a cancer on this country. Amazon shills are fine with that since they are typically simpletons that think opposing it is opposing their finer points like Amazon Prime and their UI.

[Anti Federalist]

I distrust big business as much as big government.

They usually go hand in hand with each other.

Were it not for big government and it's equally big tax burden, the wages being paid by Amazon would support a family.

[kahless]

I distrust big business as much as big government.

They usually go hand in hand with each other.

Were it not for big government and it's equally big tax burden, the wages being paid by Amazon would support a family.

IDK, if you eliminated taxes for the Amazon employees the employees are still basically slaves to Amazon if competition is eliminated and their internet tax regulations adopted by government stifle competition or are used as a political tool to stifle decent.

[Swordsmyth]

IDK, if you eliminated taxes for the Amazon employees the employees are still basically slaves to Amazon if competition is eliminated and their internet tax regulations adopted by government stifle competition or are used as a political tool to stifle decent.
If welfare didn't exist then they would have to pay a decent wage to keep anyone.

[VIDEODROME]

I don't know that Amazon would care if SNAP or subsidies went away or make up the difference in pay. More likely, it would be up to low wage workers to share housing with more room mates to get rent relief while living on Ramen.

Or as others have suggested, just get more jobs and have no life while somehow getting enough rest to meet performance expectations of Amazon micromanagers.

[kahless]

I don't know that Amazon would care if SNAP or subsidies went away or make up the difference in pay. More likely, it would be up to low wage workers to share housing with more room mates to get rent relief while living on Ramen.

Or as others have suggested, just get more jobs and have no life while somehow getting enough rest to meet performance expectations of Amazon micromanagers.

Yet they expect us to celebrate that and worship at the altar of Amazon to make that happen. Fucking slave master shills. The programming runs too deep with some people.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know that Amazon would care if SNAP or subsidies went away or make up the difference in pay. More likely, it would be up to low wage workers to share housing with more room mates to get rent relief while living on Ramen.

Or as others have suggested, just get more jobs and have no life while somehow getting enough rest to meet performance expectations of Amazon micromanagers.
If taxes, welfare and regulations were reduced and eliminated people would have other options.

[heavenlyboy34]

we have a "private sector?" news to me.
It's regulated AF, but not totally State controlled *yet*. They're working on it, tho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector

[Raginfridus]

So what?

So all this griping about low wages is horse crap.

[angelatc]

If welfare didn't exist then they would have to pay a decent wage to keep anyone.

Exactly. If the labor market was tight, wages would rise dramatically. This whole "people can't be bothered to go look for a better job!" and "Life isn't easy!" stuff is ridiculous. Thats what charity is for - not government.

[angelatc]

I don't know that Amazon would care if SNAP or subsidies went away or make up the difference in pay. More likely, it would be up to low wage workers to share housing with more room mates to get rent relief while living on Ramen.

Or as others have suggested, just get more jobs and have no life while somehow getting enough rest to meet performance expectations of Amazon micromanagers.

Oh, the condescension.

[angelatc]

So let's stop the program!

Cold turkey, work or starve.

While we're at it free (tax dollar supported) housing and medical need to go too.

What about the children? Some people don't have time to go look for better jobs. It's not easy for everybody. Why are you so mean???

[acptulsa]

Labor is worth what a business is willing to pay for it and what a laborer is willing to work for it. Period.

If the State intervenes in that transaction, all it does is distort the market. Like everything else.

And is not giving SNAP and/or Section 8 to working people an intervention that distorts the labor market? There was a time--I remember it--when full time workers were not eligible for such benefits. There's yet another case of conservatives shooting conservatism in the foot. If people who don't work deserve it, how is it that people who do work don't deserve it?

That's just a dog whistle argument for corporate welfare. If a person can work sixty hours a week and have to choose between being homeless and eating, or having shelter and starving, that person is not going to do that job. The only reason these people do these jobs is because the taxpayer is picking up the slack. Which means the taxpayer is enabling the CEO and the stockholders to pocket more. Yes, of course the CEO is going to do that, if the taxpayers are dumb enough to put up with it, and the stockholders won't complain either.

There's nothing free market about it. People owing their souls to the company store, people working for a wage which doesn't allow them to meet their basic necessities for survival, does not happen in a free market. It does not happen. People do not work for the right to starve to death. Suggesting such a thing is 'free market' is laughable.

The State is intervening in the labor transaction to Amazon's benefit. And Amazon is using political clout to ensure it continues. They are paying politicians with money that should be going to their employees. The labor market is distorted. If the State weren't making it possible for Amazon employees to survive, they would leave the company and find a way to survive.

To say that libertarians should defend Amazon because it's an enterprise is laughable. When the corporations are in bed with the politicians, you have fascism, and fascism is no more free market than socialism. And the more libertarians babble about how enterprises are good no matter what--even to the point of winking at obvious distortions of markets and turning a blind eye to fascism--the less people looking for the answers the media obviously isn't giving them will look to libertarians for those answers.

People would quit these jobs if the government weren't giving them enough food to survive on the starvation wages. What has that got to do with the free market? It's disguised as individual welfare, but it isn't. It's corporate welfare. Just as oil companies and drug companies wouldn't be able to operate profitably in certain areas of the world if the army and navy weren't providing them with free security. Corporate welfare is what it is, and we, of all people, should call it that.

[Madison320]

The problem isn't the "program"- the problem is that we are so submerged in The Matrix and what we think is "reality", that we are clueless to what life ought to be. Working 8-12 hrs a day for The Man is NOT freedom, it's a government prison for all.

Real freedom would be to have the right to travel, roam, own land, learn, exchange, set your own perimeters, be a real entrepreneur, w/o constant gov interference. Most people would do quite well- and all charity would be local.

This 9-5 American Dream, that everyone accepts as "reality". is utter bull$#@!.

Most individuals don't have the capital, or the knowledge, and don't want to take the risk associated with owning your own business. If our government wasn't so big workers would be able to work way less hours and have a much higher standard of living. Back in the 1950s a guy with a high school diploma could make enough to support a family and wife that stayed at home.

[Madison320]

Are you $#@!ing kidding me? You must be a $#@!ing moron.

Labor is worth what it is worth. If the State intervenes in the market and artificially props up the low end of the labor market, how the $#@! is that Amazon's problem?

How is it Amazon's responsibility to pay MORE for labor than it values it?

Jeezus Criminy what is going on here at RPF? Please don't tell me this is what is passing for libertarian around here any more.

I agree. The real problem is our 4+ trillion a year government. And it's going to get a lot worse when we can no longer borrow and print.

[H_H]

So let's stop the program!

Cold turkey, work or starve.

While we're at it free (tax dollar supported) housing and medical need to go too.What about the children?

The children are the whole point. Eugenics FTW!

[H_H]

And is not giving SNAP and/or Section 8 to working people an intervention that distorts the labor market

The only reason these people do these jobs is because the taxpayer is picking up the slack.

The State is intervening in the labor transaction to Amazon's benefit. And Amazon is using political clout to ensure it continues

To say that libertarians should defend Amazon because it's an enterprise is laughable. When the corporations are in bed with the politicians, you have fascism,

People would quit these jobs if the government weren't giving them enough food to survive on the starvation wages. What has that got to do with the free market?
Your point is good, and very clearly true. It's undeniable, yes? Does anyone here wish to try to deny it?

Societies are designed and planned. This is not done by a Central Committee meeting once a week in a high chamber, but it is done. It is planned by the whole community, organically, with the most intelligent and the most invested men steering developments most strongly, naturally, organically.

Societies are large complexes of variables, and few indeed are the variables that stand unaffected by changes in any of the others. Inviting in 100 million third-world peasants to live with us, as we have, is a variable that has consequences. Massively promoting and subsidizing the buying of everything through mail-order (sorry, got to use the hip new term: "online") is another variable with consequences.

At some point we, the people, are going to have to start caring about our communities again and consciously thinking and acting in regards to "what is going to make this a great place for my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren to live and thrive?" Right now, our living places are fast becoming not only not great, but not even human. Inhuman. Our way of living is getting hosed.

There's more to life than the free market. There's free-dom. People aren't just consumptive bots that happen to have low tensile strength. They don't like to be, anyway. They have souls. They like to have souls.

TL;DR: Actions have consequences, and the actions of the Boomers have been disgustingly poor. Nihilistic. They've run our society into the ground (((with encouragement))) and now it's our job to look around, realize that, accept that truth, and start building it up again.

[Krugminator2]

Most individuals don't have the capital, or the knowledge, and don't want to take the risk associated with owning your own business. If our government wasn't so big workers would be able to work way less hours and have a much higher standard of living. Back in the 1950s a guy with a high school diploma could make enough to support a family and wife that stayed at home.

For one thing, the entire world was decimated at that time. Japan and Europe were destroyed and that was when China was a closed economy. That opened the door for the US to make things at uncompetitive prices.

More importantly, that family from the 50's can still do the same thing today. The kicker is they have to live like the 50's. Most houses built in the 50's were super small. Just look at any neighborhood with old houses. The average house from that time wouldn't be considered very nice compared to the average new house by today's standards. If you eliminated cell phone, internet, cable had one vehicle, and only had access to 1950s health care you could raise a family on a high school income if you don't live in an expensive area.

[Madison320]

For one thing, the entire world was decimated at that time. Japan and Europe were destroyed and that was when China was a closed economy. That opened the door for the US to make things at uncompetitive prices.

More importantly, that family from the 50's can still do the same thing today. The kicker is they have to live like the 50's. Most houses built in the 50's were super small. Just look at any neighborhood with old houses. The average house from that time wouldn't be considered very nice compared to the average new house by today's standards. If you eliminated cell phone, internet, cable had one vehicle, and only had access to 1950s health care you could raise a family on a high school income if you don't live in an expensive area.

So you don't think the rise in the size of government has affected living standards?


Assuming a cheap area to live a guy with a high school diploma is probably $10 an hour * 40 = 1,600 a month - taxes about 1,200.

$600 payment on a small house
$200 for a used car
$400 for food:

That's $1200 right there and that's not even close to covering everything.

[timosman]

What about the children? Some people don't have time to go look for better jobs. It's not easy for everybody. Why are you so mean???

Pleeeeeeese, what about those who can but can not find anything because a big corp, who never made a dime of profit, has grabbed the government by the balls and is dangling a huge revenue in front of their noses and these idiots are salivating. Whatever you want, they say. :cool:

[Krugminator2]

So you don't think the rise in the size of government has affected living standards?


Assuming a cheap area to live a guy with a high school diploma is probably $10 an hour * 40 = 1,600 a month - taxes about 1,200.



Government has negatively impacted living standards, but it has only slowed growth. The average person today lives multiples better than a person in the 1950s.

The average high school grad makes 37k/yr today. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/high-school-graduates-who-work-full-time-had-median-weekly-earnings-of-718-in-second-quarter.htm

The average income for all workers in the 1955 was 4k. We'll take 4k from 1955 and adjust for inflation and interestingly it comes out to be $37k in today's dollars. So yes. I think a high school grad can a raise a family just the same as someone in the 1950s.

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

[angelatc]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” -- C.S. Lewis, "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)"

[angelatc]

To say that libertarians should defend Amazon because it's an enterprise is laughable. When the corporations are in bed with the politicians, you have fascism, and fascism is no more free market than socialism. And the more libertarians babble about how enterprises are good no matter what--even to the point of winking at obvious distortions of markets and turning a blind eye to fascism--the less people looking for the answers the media obviously isn't giving them will look to libertarians for those answers.



Insisting that evil Amazon should be forced into paying over a market wage means you're siding against the free market. We can agree that this isn't a free market, but moar force isn't the Libertarian solution.

Let the workers starve. When they reach a point where they can't pay their bills any longer, their children are hungry at night, they will seek employment elsewhere, or they will seek a way to make themselves more valuable . Or they'll vote for people who promise to force Amazon to pay them more even though they're not worth more.

Congratulations - you win.

I can't stand the appeal to emotion nonsense. My life is 10 times harder than that of some guy working at an Amazon warehouse. If I can do it, so can he.

[timosman]

If I can do it, so can he.

You sound like an SJW. What if others are not willing to partake in the race to the bottom?:cool:

[timosman]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” -- C.S. Lewis, "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)"

You just described the status quo.

[Swordsmyth]

Government has negatively impacted living standards, but it has only slowed growth. The average person today lives multiples better than a person in the 1950s.

The average high school grad makes 37k/yr today. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/high-school-graduates-who-work-full-time-had-median-weekly-earnings-of-718-in-second-quarter.htm

The average income for all workers in the 1955 was 4k. We'll take 4k from 1955 and adjust for inflation and interestingly it comes out to be $37k in today's dollars. So yes. I think a high school grad can a raise a family just the same as someone in the 1950s.

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

The official inflation numbers are manipulated.

[heavenlyboy34]

Insisting that evil Amazon should be forced into paying over a market wage means you're siding against the free market. We can agree that this isn't a free market, but moar force isn't the Libertarian solution.

Let the workers starve. When they reach a point where they can't pay their bills any longer, their children are hungry at night, they will seek employment elsewhere, or they will seek a way to make themselves more valuable . Or they'll vote for people who promise to force Amazon to pay them more even though they're not worth more.

Congratulations - you win.

I can't stand the appeal to emotion nonsense. My life is 10 times harder than that of some guy working at an Amazon warehouse. If I can do it, so can he.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to angelatc again.
Some shocking un-libertarian shenannigans going on in this thread, Angie. :eek:

[timosman]

The official inflation numbers are manipulated.

Things are not so bad. It is true we have not made progress in 50 years but we have not lowered the standard of living(according to the official numbers) either.:cool:

[timosman]

Some shocking un-libertarian shenannigans going on in this thread, Angie. :eek:

Our simplistic rules no longer apply. I could always say FREE MARKET, even if there wasn't one in existence for a very long time, and people would be nodding. Now they also insinuating my blind faith in the free market is the reason I am being fucked! :eek:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[H_H]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” -- C.S. Lewis, "God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)"

Amen! Bravo!

Let's have some more relevant and truly thought-provoking quotes:

" 'The theory of the Communists,' write Marx and Engels, 'may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.' But here, private property remains untouched. The productive apparatuses are to be fully automated, removing workers as much as possible from every stage of the production process: who, then, will own them? Who will own the commodities that these apparatuses produce? And if humanity is unburdened from the need to work and left to produce freely in the pursuit of its own self-expression, who will own that? Without anything to oppose bourgeois property, the result could be fully monstrous: a bloated, gluttonous ruling class engaged in limitless production, and recapturing any losses when the new peons come to spend their universal basic pittance. The propertied classes would fuse with an automaton that requires no human parts except for ownership to form a single apparatus; Utopia as a cyborg dictatorship.


"This future has, in fact, already been described – it’s E.M. Forster’s 1909 science-fiction story The Machine Stops. Here, all of humanity lives in tiny cells within the body of the vast subterranean Machine. The Machine produces all their consumer goods, it provides them with anything they might want or need at a moment’s notice, it speaks to them, and allows them to speak to each other through video-messaging. People tend not to leave their cells; it’s not forbidden, but it’s certainly not encouraged. Full automation. Universal basic income. A networked society. In the end the Machine starts to slowly disintegrate. Billions die, and Forster, who had something of a reactionary streak, can only see this as a good thing. Who owns the Machine? The Machine does." – The Future Has Already Happened (https://www.viewpointmag.com/2016/06/01/the-future-has-already-happened/), Sam Kriss

And a delicious word stew:

"Ever since it became theoretically evident that our precious personal identities were just brand-tags for trading crumbs of labour-power on the libidino-economic junk circuit, the vestiges of authorial theatricality [have been wearing] thinner"

[timosman]

"Ever since it became theoretically evident that our precious personal identities were just brand-tags for trading crumbs of labour-power on the libidino-economic junk circuit, the vestiges of authorial theatricality [have been wearing] thinner"

Same source:

“Suffering must be obviously futile if it is to be 'educational'. It is for this reason that our history is so unintelligible, and indeed, nothing that was true has ever made sense. 'Why was so much pain necessary?' we foolishly ask. But it is precisely because history has made no sense that we have learnt from it, and the lesson remains a brutal one.”

[H_H]

Same source:

“Suffering must be obviously futile if it is to be 'educational'. It is for this reason that our history is so unintelligible, and indeed, nothing that was true has ever made sense. 'Why was so much pain necessary?' we foolishly ask. But it is precisely because history has made no sense that we have learnt from it, and the lesson remains a brutal one.”

Pain is the Messenger. The Lesson will continue until it is Learnt.

[timosman]

Pain is the Messenger. The Lesson will continue until it is Learnt.

The beatings will continue until morale improves. :cool:

[kahless]

Insisting that evil Amazon should be forced into paying over a market wage means you're siding against the free market. We can agree that this isn't a free market, but moar force isn't the Libertarian solution.

Can you please point to the post in this thread where someone advocated that since I do not see it acptula's post you quoted?


Some shocking un-libertarian shenannigans going on in this thread, Angie. :eek:

Maybe you two should spend time reading what Libertarians like Ron Paul believe about monopolies. What Ron said here applies to Amazon.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/october/31/blame-government-not-markets-for-monopoly/


Monopolies and cartels are creations of government, not markets.
....
Legislation forcing consumers to pay out-of-state sales tax on their online purchases is a classic case of business seeking to use government to harm less politically-powerful competitors. This legislation is being pushed by large brick-and-mortar stores and Internet retailers who are seeking a government-granted advantage over smaller competitors.
...
Monopolies only exist when government tilts the playing field in favor of well-connected crony capitalists.

[timosman]

angelatc suffers from the Stockholm syndrome.

[angelatc]

Some shocking un-libertarian shenannigans going on in this thread, Angie. :eek:

Liberals and Libertarians agree that public/private collusion is a bad thing. It's just the solutions we disagree on. Human nature is human nature...Amazon isn't going to pay .01 more than they have to. Workers aren't ever going to go home at night and say, "Yes, that's a perfectly fair wage for this job that requires very little special skills." And politicians are going to use tax money to buy votes.

[angelatc]

Can you please point to the post in this thread where someone advocated that since I do not see it acptula's post you quoted?



Maybe you two should spend time reading what Libertarians like Ron Paul believe about monopolies. What Ron said here applies to Amazon.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/october/31/blame-government-not-markets-for-monopoly/

Maybe you should fucking look up the definition of monopoly. But allow me to quote from the same article you oddly decided would be good fodder:
When Time-Warner announced it planned to merge with another major communications firm, many feared the new company would exercise near-total monopoly power. These concerns led some to call for government action to block the merger in order to protect both Time-Warner's competitors and consumers.

No, I am not talking about Time-Warner’s recent announced plan to merge with AT&T, but the reaction to Time-Warner’s merger with (then) Internet giant AOL in 2000. Far from creating an untouchable leviathan crushing all competitors, the AOL-Time-Warner merger fell apart in under a decade.

The failure of AOL-Time-Warner demonstrates that even the biggest companies are vulnerable to competition if there is open entry into the marketplace. AOL-Time-Warner failed because consumers left them for competitors offering lower prices and/or better quality.

[angelatc]

angelatc suffers from the Stockholm syndrome.

Now you are literally hallucinating. I'm here arguing for free markets.

[timosman]

Now you are literally hallucinating. I'm here arguing for free markets.

Thank you for setting the record straight.:cool:

[timosman]

When Time-Warner announced it planned to merge with another major communications firm, many feared the new company would exercise near-total monopoly power. These concerns led some to call for government action to block the merger in order to protect both Time-Warner's competitors and consumers.

You are such a dupe. Everybody knew they were being set up. The calls for blocking the deal were orchestrated so the dupes at TW would have an excuse to go for it. Looks like you never seen a merger or an acquisition in real life. :cool:

[H_H]

The beatings will continue until morale improves. :cool:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBot8SOLWBQ

[kahless]

I'm here arguing for free markets.

Could have fooled me with your shilling for a company that is wiping out competition in some sectors. This while they are making every effort to push legislation that would subject businesses to tax audits from 9600 US tax jurisdictions. Of course Amazon is selling it to government that no problem they would offer every business in the country tax services to manage it. Effectively one of the few companies that can do so due to their size.

[fcreature]

Could have fooled me with your shilling for a company that is wiping out competition in some sectors. This while they are making every effort to push legislation that would subject businesses to tax audits from 9600 US tax jurisdictions. Of course Amazon is selling it to government that no problem they would offer every business in the country tax services to manage it. Effectively one of the few companies that can do so due to their size.

"Shilling"? Not sure there is any shilling going on in this thread, exactly.

When the government becomes this large and offers a welfare state to it's citizens, you can't expect companies operating in a rational manner to not take advantage of those policies. This is the environment they operate in and the truth is if they don't do it, their competitors will and they will go out of business.

Sure, it's immoral. But the immorality of stealing money from your citizens to fund a welfare state and to redistribute wealth is an immorality of much greater significance. It is what allows and outright encourages companies like Amazon to do what they do.

I'm as suspicious of Amazon as any. They're doing their best to monopolize my industry.

Amazon is not alone in it's abuse of our nanny state. And the problem extends far beyond the pay that is offered to employees.

The problem is the type of argument happening in this thread is what leads to a bigger welfare state. These are the same arguments that are used to argue for a greater minimum wage, and more wealth redistribution.

[kahless]

"Shilling"? Not sure there is any shilling going on in this thread, exactly.

When the government becomes this large and offers a welfare state to it's citizens, you can't expect companies operating in a rational manner to not take advantage of those policies. This is the environment they operate in and the truth is if they don't do it, their competitors will and they will go out of business.

Sure, it's immoral. But the immorality of stealing money from your citizens to fund a welfare state and to redistribute wealth is an immorality of much greater significance. It is what allows and outright encourages companies like Amazon to do what they do.

I'm as suspicious of Amazon as any. They're doing their best to monopolize my industry.

Amazon is not alone in it's abuse of our nanny state. And the problem extends far beyond the pay that is offered to employees.

The problem is the type of argument happening in this thread is what leads to a bigger welfare state. These are the same arguments that are used to argue for a greater minimum wage, and more wealth redistribution.

Again, pointing out their immorality is by no means advocating growing the welfare state and does not make one a "leftist" or whatever "fucking" her words she comes up with. Bashing the employees and those that point out Amazon's immorality is certainly giving cover and shilling for them.

They are a threat to my individual liberty as much as government in their tactics to eliminate competition and subject me to authoritarian tax policy which will certainly be used as a tool by the far left against businesses.

[dannno]

https://youtu.be/eXWhbUUE4ko


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKpiP3HG-Y

[AuH20]

1035334044698009600