Speaker to Animals wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:20 pm
I am not making that demand. I am just making the case that it's fucking silly to throw Amazon out there as some great example of jobs-creating capitalism.
Second largest employer in the nation, on track to being a trillion dollar company (first ever). Pays way more than aka and Pandime store or Farmer Joe’s tomato pickin’.
/shrug
As was explained to you previously, being the largest employer does not mean you are the predominant employer. The vast majority of Americans in the private sector are employed by small and medium-sized businesses, not large corporations. Amazon destroyed far more jobs than they created, and the jobs they created are significantly sub-par what Americans had before Amazon and Walmart did their thing.
When you think about jobs policies, you need to focus on small and medium businesses. That's where the majority of Americans find jobs in the private sector.
DBTrek wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:06 am
Aaaaaand the panicked media predictably publishes a bunch of stories telling us what a hero the cowardly deep-state op-ed writer is:
As was explained to you previously, being the largest employer does not mean you are the predominant employer. The vast majority of Americans in the private sector are employed by small and medium-sized businesses, not large corporations.
But none of those SMBs rape America by hiring workers who still receive welfare benefits, right?
Hastur wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:36 pm
Destroying real jobs by having the taxpayers subsidizing your business isn’t what qualifies as an accomplishment. It’s a fucking disease.
Taxpayers are subsidizing the poor. They aren’t subsididizing a business. You all have this strange conflation issue where a taxpayer subsidized poor person finds a low wage job, and suddenly you believe the taxpayer is subsidizing the business. They’re not. They’re still subsidizing the poor person.
Hastur wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:36 pm
Destroying real jobs by having the taxpayers subsidizing your business isn’t what qualifies as an accomplishment. It’s a fucking disease.
Taxpayers are subsidizing the poor. They aren’t subsididizing a business. You all have this strange conflation issue where a taxpayer subsidized poor person finds a low wage job, and suddenly you believe the taxpayer is subsidizing the business. They’re not. They’re still subsidizing the poor person.
/shrug
How come this is such a difficult point to get across. Some business hires a guy that barely makes any sense in the first place, and folks start yelling "Living Wage!" Just fire that mutterfukker and let The State carry the full load.
Hastur wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:36 pm
Destroying real jobs by having the taxpayers subsidizing your business isn’t what qualifies as an accomplishment. It’s a fucking disease.
Taxpayers are subsidizing the poor. They aren’t subsididizing a business. You all have this strange conflation issue where a taxpayer subsidized poor person finds a low wage job, and suddenly you believe the taxpayer is subsidizing the business. They’re not. They’re still subsidizing the poor person.
/shrug
How come this is such a difficult point to get across. Some business hires a guy that barely makes any sense in the first place, and folks start yelling "Living Wage!" Just fire that mutterfukker and let The State carry the full load.
This is already happening. McDs gets told $15 minimum wage, a year later they have computerized ordering kiosks and less cashier's, and they're evaluating burger flipping and fry cooking machines for the future. The people they no longer employ? Well, the state can cover them in full.
Amazon is already working on robotic "pickers". You think telling them they need to pay people more will end up with higher paid workers, or less workers and more robotics? And where do those less workers go?
Taxpayers are subsidizing the poor. They aren’t subsididizing a business. You all have this strange conflation issue where a taxpayer subsidized poor person finds a low wage job, and suddenly you believe the taxpayer is subsidizing the business. They’re not. They’re still subsidizing the poor person.
/shrug
How come this is such a difficult point to get across. Some business hires a guy that barely makes any sense in the first place, and folks start yelling "Living Wage!" Just fire that mutterfukker and let The State carry the full load.
This is already happening. McDs gets told $15 minimum wage, a year later they have computerized ordering kiosks and less cashier's, and they're evaluating burger flipping and fry cooking machines for the future. The people they no longer employ? Well, the state can cover them in full.
Amazon is already working on robotic "pickers". You think telling them they need to pay people more will end up with higher paid workers, or less workers and more robotics? And where do those less workers go?
I think if they have to build robotic workers to do it, then they should spend the money on robots and then society can just figure out how to deal with the displaced workers via closing down visas, shipping off illegals, and undoing shitty trade deals that are really just job offshoring deals.
What I don't like is socialism for Jeff Bezos and fuck yourselfenomics for the rest of us.
Amazon gets away with this shit, indeed most of corporate America now gets away with this shit, because our politicians stab the American people in the back every single God damned day.
Speaker to Animals wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:16 pm
We could also end the immigration policies that Jeff Bezos paid for. We could make that motherfucker pay taxes too.
Lots of options on the table..
Those efforts seem more sound than demanding that any employer offering any kind of job must ensure whomever they employ never requires state assistance.
Being that you’re the only person that’s proposed such a thing, I applaud your retraction.
