Bernie Sanders introduces "Stop BEZOS Act"

[phands]

Oh dear....

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill dubbed the "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act" or "Stop BEZOS Act" in the Senate Wednesday.
The big picture: The bill would make big companies that employ huge numbers of workers at low wages — like Amazon and Walmart — pay the government for the federal assistance their workers receive.

Timing: Sanders' bill comes one day after Amazon became the second U.S. company, behind Apple, to reach a $1 trillion stock-market valuation.

• Sanders tweeted, "Amazon is worth $1 TRILLION ... Thousands of Amazon workers have to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing to survive. That is what a rigged economy looks like."

Amazon disputed Sanders' assertion that its warehouse employees don't make a living wage and called his arguments "inaccurate and misleading" in a blog post.

https://www.axios.com/bernie-sander...act-8a336410-755c-4ece-b9bf-abb20f165353.html

 

[Axulus]

Oh dear....

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill dubbed the "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act" or "Stop BEZOS Act" in the Senate Wednesday.
The big picture: The bill would make big companies that employ huge numbers of workers at low wages — like Amazon and Walmart — pay the government for the federal assistance their workers receive.

Timing: Sanders' bill comes one day after Amazon became the second U.S. company, behind Apple, to reach a $1 trillion stock-market valuation.

• Sanders tweeted, "Amazon is worth $1 TRILLION ... Thousands of Amazon workers have to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing to survive. That is what a rigged economy looks like."

Amazon disputed Sanders' assertion that its warehouse employees don't make a living wage and called his arguments "inaccurate and misleading" in a blog post.

https://www.axios.com/bernie-sander...act-8a336410-755c-4ece-b9bf-abb20f165353.html

Why big companies? Why are small mom and pops paying minimum wage just fine under Bernie's logic?

Also, how is offering someone a job contributing to taxpayer subsidies? They went from $0 income to something. Presumably the government subsidies would be even higher if the person was earning $0.

More than anything, this is going to eliminate part time positions. Positions which some people want because it works fine for their life.

 

[Juma]

Oh dear....

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill dubbed the "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act" or "Stop BEZOS Act" in the Senate Wednesday.
The big picture: The bill would make big companies that employ huge numbers of workers at low wages — like Amazon and Walmart — pay the government for the federal assistance their workers receive.

Timing: Sanders' bill comes one day after Amazon became the second U.S. company, behind Apple, to reach a $1 trillion stock-market valuation.

• Sanders tweeted, "Amazon is worth $1 TRILLION ... Thousands of Amazon workers have to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing to survive. That is what a rigged economy looks like."

Amazon disputed Sanders' assertion that its warehouse employees don't make a living wage and called his arguments "inaccurate and misleading" in a blog post.

https://www.axios.com/bernie-sander...act-8a336410-755c-4ece-b9bf-abb20f165353.html

Why big companies? Why are small mom and pops paying minimum wage just fine under Bernie's logic?

#Whatabout

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Amazon says part time workers aren't paid as much, but full time do just fine. Ponder how much work is performed by part-time workers.

I would also question the significance of the $1 trillion value. The aggregate share value is $1 trillion, but what can Amazon do with that? Nothing. They got their money in the IPO.

Then on the other hand, we've been told a minimum wage doesn't work... but also that people who make low wages don't work hard...

Is there a right-wing solution to poor wages? Or are poor wages the right-wing solution to lifting profits?

 

[Axulus]

Amazon says part time workers aren't paid as much, but full time do just fine. Ponder how much work is performed by part-time workers.

I would also question the significance of the $1 trillion value. The aggregate share value is $1 trillion, but what can Amazon do with that? Nothing. They got their money in the IPO.

Then on the other hand, we've been told a minimum wage doesn't work... but also that people who make low wages don't work hard...

Is there a right-wing solution to poor wages? Or are poor wages the right-wing solution to lifting profits?

The "right wing" solution is something akin to a UBI or negative income tax (proposed by Milton Friedman, for example), along with creating a robust, dynamic economy with a low unemployment rate so that workers can easily find other job options if they want to quit, along with companies bidding up wages to attract enough qualified workers (which happens when we are at full employment. The fastest wage growth in the recent decades occurred at the end of the 90's when the economy was booming. We seem to be approaching that point.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Universal basic income is what is needed. Not more government interference in employment contracts.

 

[dismal]

It's unconstitutional and undemocratic to pass laws designed to punish specific individuals.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's unconstitutional and undemocratic to pass laws designed to punish specific individuals.

No, but you can pass laws to punish specific practices and you can then reference specific individuals who perform these practices in order to explain their negative effects and justify why these practices need to be punished.

I also agree that some sort of UBI is the better solution. If a given job is only worth $2/hour, then only pay people $2/hour to perform it. This shouldn't impact the ability of people working at it to feed and house their family, though.

 

[Jarhyn]

Amazon says part time workers aren't paid as much, but full time do just fine. Ponder how much work is performed by part-time workers.

I would also question the significance of the $1 trillion value. The aggregate share value is $1 trillion, but what can Amazon do with that? Nothing. They got their money in the IPO.

Then on the other hand, we've been told a minimum wage doesn't work... but also that people who make low wages don't work hard...

Is there a right-wing solution to poor wages? Or are poor wages the right-wing solution to lifting profits?

The "right wing" solution is something akin to a UBI or negative income tax (proposed by Milton Friedman, for example), along with creating a robust, dynamic economy with a low unemployment rate so that workers can easily find other job options if they want to quit, along with companies bidding up wages to attract enough qualified workers (which happens when we are at full employment. The fastest wage growth in the recent decades occurred at the end of the 90's when the economy was booming. We seem to be approaching that point.)

Which is nonsense, because an economy with a work shortage enough to give individual workers freedom to walk just plain isn't possible. Growth strategies are explicitly modelled to prevent this; businesses that are short of workers simply won't operate, will go under, and there will be no more job openings.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's unconstitutional and undemocratic to pass laws designed to punish specific individuals.

No, but you can pass laws to punish specific practices and you can then reference specific individuals who perform these practices in order to explain their negative effects and justify why these practices need to be punished.

I also agree that some sort of UBI is the better solution. If a given job is only worth $2/hour, then only pay people $2/hour to perform it. This shouldn't impact the ability of people working at it to feed and house their family, though.

Exactly. And tax the huge corporations based on their income, so companies like Walmart and Amazon will be supporting these workers even if their wages are low, through tax and universal support. This also brings in the companies that automate and avoid workers and wages altogether. They too should be paying their share to support society.

I see no reason why a wage should be set according to costs of living. I do see reason to support everyone so they have what they need.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Amazon says part time workers aren't paid as much, but full time do just fine. Ponder how much work is performed by part-time workers.

I would also question the significance of the $1 trillion value. The aggregate share value is $1 trillion, but what can Amazon do with that? Nothing. They got their money in the IPO.

Then on the other hand, we've been told a minimum wage doesn't work... but also that people who make low wages don't work hard...

Is there a right-wing solution to poor wages? Or are poor wages the right-wing solution to lifting profits?

The "right wing" solution is something akin to a UBI or negative income tax (proposed by Milton Friedman, for example), along with creating a robust, dynamic economy with a low unemployment rate so that workers can easily find other job options if they want to quit, along with companies bidding up wages to attract enough qualified workers (which happens when we are at full employment. The fastest wage growth in the recent decades occurred at the end of the 90's when the economy was booming. We seem to be approaching that point.)

Interesting argument seeing that the unemployment rate right now is very very low, yet wages are growing slower than inflation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why IS the focus of politicians always on JOBS JOBS JOBS, and not on having enough resources to survive on? There are unemployed who have other sources of income and get by fine, and there are the working poor.

 

[ronburgundy]

Oh dear....

Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced a bill dubbed the "Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act" or "Stop BEZOS Act" in the Senate Wednesday.
The big picture: The bill would make big companies that employ huge numbers of workers at low wages — like Amazon and Walmart — pay the government for the federal assistance their workers receive.

Timing: Sanders' bill comes one day after Amazon became the second U.S. company, behind Apple, to reach a $1 trillion stock-market valuation.

• Sanders tweeted, "Amazon is worth $1 TRILLION ... Thousands of Amazon workers have to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing to survive. That is what a rigged economy looks like."

Amazon disputed Sanders' assertion that its warehouse employees don't make a living wage and called his arguments "inaccurate and misleading" in a blog post.

https://www.axios.com/bernie-sander...act-8a336410-755c-4ece-b9bf-abb20f165353.html

Why big companies? Why are small mom and pops paying minimum wage just fine under Bernie's logic?

Because bigger companies paying low wages have a bigger negative impact on wages in general and thus on the % of full time workers who still require public assistance. The way that such companies get big is often by driving competitors out of business, in part by lowering wages in order to undercut competitors on product pricing. Thus, they not only force their own employees to seek public assistance in order to live, but they drive down wages in their entire industry. A mom and pop shop with 2 low paid employees will have minimal impact beyond those 2 employees.

Also, how is offering someone a job contributing to taxpayer subsidies? They went from $0 income to something. Presumably the government subsidies would be even higher if the person was earning $0.

Because companies paying lower wages are a cause of wages in general becoming lower. Companies that pay lower wages either force their competitors to also lower their wages or they drive competitors out of business, forcing the former employees of the competitors to come work for them at lower wages. Also, when low wages by large companies cause consolidation of labor under fewer and fewer companies this increases unemployment. This is because larger scale production can be done with lower per-unit cost, so the number of jobs lost by competitors going under is greater than the number of jobs the low wage company will need to meet that demand that the competitors used to satisfy. The larger the company that is using low wages to increase market share, the greater the impact on competitors and thus the larger and more economy-wide the negative impact this practice has wages and thus on the % of full time workers on public assistance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why big companies? Why are small mom and pops paying minimum wage just fine under Bernie's logic?

Because bigger companies paying low wages have a bigger negative impact on wages in general and thus on the % of full time workers who still require public assistance. The way that such companies get big is often by driving competitors out of business, in part by lowering wages in order to undercut competitors on product pricing. Thus, they not only force their own employees to seek public assistance in order to live, but they drive down wages in their entire industry. A mom and pop shop with 2 low paid employees will have minimal impact beyond those 2 employees.

Also, how is offering someone a job contributing to taxpayer subsidies? They went from $0 income to something. Presumably the government subsidies would be even higher if the person was earning $0.

Because companies paying lower wages are a cause of wages in general becoming lower. Companies that pay lower wages either force their competitors to also lower their wages or they drive competitors out of business, forcing the former employees of the competitors to come work for them at lower wages. Also, when low wages by large companies cause consolidation of labor under fewer and fewer companies this increases unemployment. This is because larger scale production can be done with lower per-unit cost, so the number of jobs lost by competitors going under is greater than the number of jobs the low wage company will need to meet that demand that the competitors used to satisfy. The larger the company that is using low wages to increase market share, the greater the impact on competitors and thus the larger and more economy-wide the negative impact this practice has wages and thus on the % of full time workers on public assistance.

The above is correct, but rests on the presumption (currently true) that the employees accept and work for the lower wages. They only do so because their other choice is to starve. Take away the uneven bargaining power with the availability of UBI, and you have a better and fairer fix.

 

[dismal]

Because bigger companies paying low wages have a bigger negative impact on wages in general and thus on the % of full time workers who still require public assistance. The way that such companies get big is often by driving competitors out of business, in part by lowering wages in order to undercut competitors on product pricing. Thus, they not only force their own employees to seek public assistance in order to live, but they drive down wages in their entire industry. A mom and pop shop with 2 low paid employees will have minimal impact beyond those 2 employees.



Because companies paying lower wages are a cause of wages in general becoming lower. Companies that pay lower wages either force their competitors to also lower their wages or they drive competitors out of business, forcing the former employees of the competitors to come work for them at lower wages. Also, when low wages by large companies cause consolidation of labor under fewer and fewer companies this increases unemployment. This is because larger scale production can be done with lower per-unit cost, so the number of jobs lost by competitors going under is greater than the number of jobs the low wage company will need to meet that demand that the competitors used to satisfy. The larger the company that is using low wages to increase market share, the greater the impact on competitors and thus the larger and more economy-wide the negative impact this practice has wages and thus on the % of full time workers on public assistance.

The above is correct, but rests on the presumption (currently true) that the employees accept and work for the lower wages. They only do so because their other choice is to starve. Take away the uneven bargaining power with the availability of UBI, and you have a better and fairer fix.

I have always exercised the choice to work for higher wages.

 

[whollygoats]

Why IS the focus of politicians always on JOBS JOBS JOBS, and not on having enough resources to survive on? There are unemployed who have other sources of income and get by fine, and there are the working poor.

Cheeses, Jolly. Did you have a brain fart? Politicians focus on 'jobs' because most folks need a job to pay The Man and they respond to folks who promise to create jobs, rather than, say, investment opportunities, although they might promise those, too, for donations. The politician needs to create a tempting picture of what he might do with the economy for the benefit of all those folks out there in the electorate. Jobs is the dogwhistle for the long-suffering parents who want to dislodge their ne'er-do-well offspring from the basement, to paying off the upside-down mortgage, scraping together enough to get the orthodontistry that keeps them from going in to acting, or finally get that moronic nephew out of your hair....you name it. Politicians want votes and will say things for which they think folks in their audiences might fall. Is the South Pole some kind of autocratic despotism that you don't have this time-honored set of lies regularly perpetrated upon your unwitting populace?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Jobs is the dogwhistle for the long-suffering parents who want to dislodge their ne'er-do-well offspring from the basement, to paying off the upside-down mortgage, scraping together enough to get the orthodontistry that keeps them from going in to acting....you name it. Politicians want votes and will say thingsfor they think folks in their audiences might fall. Is the South Pole some kind of autocratic despotism?

In the south pole we eat mostly krill, and its plentiful. We don't need jobs. You wouldn't either if all of your needs were met aside from jobs. Your politicians are talking about the orthodontistry, mortgage payments, food and shelter, etc by proxy, when they could be talking about them directly. A job doesn't fix all these problems, nor can these problems only be fixed with jobs.

 

[ronburgundy]

Because bigger companies paying low wages have a bigger negative impact on wages in general and thus on the % of full time workers who still require public assistance. The way that such companies get big is often by driving competitors out of business, in part by lowering wages in order to undercut competitors on product pricing. Thus, they not only force their own employees to seek public assistance in order to live, but they drive down wages in their entire industry. A mom and pop shop with 2 low paid employees will have minimal impact beyond those 2 employees.



Because companies paying lower wages are a cause of wages in general becoming lower. Companies that pay lower wages either force their competitors to also lower their wages or they drive competitors out of business, forcing the former employees of the competitors to come work for them at lower wages. Also, when low wages by large companies cause consolidation of labor under fewer and fewer companies this increases unemployment. This is because larger scale production can be done with lower per-unit cost, so the number of jobs lost by competitors going under is greater than the number of jobs the low wage company will need to meet that demand that the competitors used to satisfy. The larger the company that is using low wages to increase market share, the greater the impact on competitors and thus the larger and more economy-wide the negative impact this practice has wages and thus on the % of full time workers on public assistance.

The above is correct, but rests on the presumption (currently true) that the employees accept and work for the lower wages. They only do so because their other choice is to starve. T .

I have always exercised the choice to work for higher wages.

When large companies use their market leverage to control most of the jobs, then by logical necessity most workers cannot simply chose to work for higher wages.

The greater the share of the market controlled by larger companies, the less choice workers have in the wages they work for and the more widespread harm done to workers, wages, and society in general due to increased poverty among full time workers.
Which is why it makes perfect sense and is perfectly fair to target larger companies that have more low wage workers with additional taxes to pay for correcting these harms that they disproportionately cause.

Take away the uneven bargaining power with the availability of UBI, and you have a better and fairer fix.

How is it fair to force tax payers to pay so that a worker can spend their time making products for a company that gets all the profit from those products?
And a UBI and extra taxes on those that cause wage earners to rely on it are not mutually exclusive, and it's quite fair to make the people doing more to cause wage earners to rely on public UBI should contribute more to its cost.

 

[ronburgundy]

Jobs is the dogwhistle for the long-suffering parents who want to dislodge their ne'er-do-well offspring from the basement, to paying off the upside-down mortgage, scraping together enough to get the orthodontistry that keeps them from going in to acting....you name it. Politicians want votes and will say thingsfor they think folks in their audiences might fall. Is the South Pole some kind of autocratic despotism?

In the south pole we eat mostly krill, and its plentiful. We don't need jobs. .

That is just it, when people are in a context where they can sustain themselves directly via their own labor, they don't spend all their time doing things that cannot sustain them. That is a recipe for self-destruction, and it is also unsustainably destructive in a labor economy. In most of the world people cannot all possibly directly sustain levels that way and must have jobs working for employers who compensate them with $ to be used to buy those goods needed to sustain themselves. We cannot have a system where employers are made ever richer by failing to compensate workers enough to sustain themselves. And allowing them to continue to do so but then force other workers to pay to sustain the most underpaid workers is neither fair nor sustainable (which is what a BMI without penalty taxes on low wage companies amounts to).

What is needed is a system that supplies a BMI but at the same time discourages/penalizes abuse of it, both by those receiving it without honest effort, and by employers who engage in practices that ensure an increase in workers who must rely on it. Both are forms of selfish abuse of others for personal gain, and neither are neccessary for a healthy economy that minimizes poverty and its societal consequences. And curbing such abuses does not cripple capitalism and private enterprise, but rather ensures the survival and stability of any society that implements such an economy.

 

[dismal]

When large companies use their market leverage to control most of the jobs, then by logical necessity most workers cannot simply chose to work for higher wages.

I have in fact chosen to work for a large company for high wages. Depending on how you define "large", I've probably chosen to do so 4 or 5 of times. My sense was that few of my co-workers were facing starvation either.