THE ERA OF TRUMP

[C-Mag]

Ameezon Destroyed Muh America!!

Even fucking Bernie ain't that fucking high.

:goteam: :drunk:

Does Amazon use roads

[Haumana]

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.

Huh? STA: end the immigration policies that Jeff Bezos paid for.
DBT: Those efforts seem more sound than demanding that any employer offering any kind of job must ensure whomever they employ never requires state assistance.
.02: Being that you’re the only person that’s proposed such a thing, I applaud your retraction.

Forgetting(??) that STA is the one advocating that any employees that take advantage of assistance from the state should be compensated by the employer or else. Nevermind the fact that most probably were on state assistance prior to them being hired in the first place. What is the percentage of people who go from no welfare to employment then apply for welfare + employment? Anyone got any numbers?


The weirdest hills to die on.....

[Hastur]

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

By subsidizing the poor workers the government creates downward pressure on the equilibrium point on the labor market. So you end up with more jobs at a lower cost for the companies hiring people on welfare. The taxpayers are picking up the difference.



It is a way to bring down unemployment. I know. I live in an environment where this kind of thinking is taken for granted, but not even us quasi-socialist Swedes goes so far to just let people keep welfare when they get a job. Here it would be some kind of program where companies would get lowered payroll taxes or a direct subsidy if they employ someone that is "far from meeting the market demands". Those programs usually have a large fail rate. Some people are just useless in the modern job market. We have some state-owned companies that only employs "ability varied" people. They just try to find them something useful to do and have no demand for profit.

Maybe I have misunderstood the situation and this is some version of a job program that you have, but to me, it sounds like you just let people keep welfare even when they get a job. That is something I oppose.

Also, to be clear, I don't think you should demand of anyone to pay a living wage for every job. There are a lot of jobs that can be done by people who just want extra income while studying or some might be prepared to have more than one job or they just want some extra money in a family where more than one person works. We have no minimum wage in my country so it's an alien concept to me.

[Speaker to Animals]

I agree with Hastur.

Paying welfare for working adults is a really bad policy. We just create more welfare as fake capitalists like Bezos slowly begin to subsidize their workforce on the taxpayer's dime.

Socialism for Jeff Bezos is a fucking anathema to capitalism and, frankly, I find it dissapointing when people defend this shit as if they stand for "free markets" (they do not).

[Fife]

The editor’s note on the Op-Ed makes me think it can’t be Trump:

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure...

Makes me think it isn’t any of the big name figures, since the NYT would sell most of them out in a heartbeat.

^^^ Occams Razor^^^

Check out this take from the Federalist:

The Warm Blanket Of Anonymity

I have a more restrained view, because this whole thing strikes me as an exercise in fart-sniffing that is patently ridiculous. This op-ed is designed to set up a post-November “I AM IRON MAN” moment where the individual – whose importance within the government is probably significant, but whose name ID is probably next to nil (otherwise a public resignation would, you know, send a message) – unveils themselves before the eyes of the people and reaps the media tour benefits of the Sally Yates who have prepared the way.

. . .

But no, this NYT author wants to forstall all this – and wants to call attention to it, in a way certain to provoke the president. True servants of the people need not boast. This one does, so we know he is not. An op-ed like this is not the confession of an honorable whistleblower. It does not tell us something new. Rather, it is designed to create a sense of paranoia and to make the White House less effective at advancing policy – and it plays directly into the hands of foreign governments at a time when many of our trade and military policies hang in the balance. And when the author is inevitably revealed, The New York Times will have to answer for its decision – particularly if it turns out to be some rando at the State Department or USTR.

It's high time to realize what agency is setting the fires to "burn this MF down."

[DBTrek]

The dilemma you guys aren’t addressing is this:

• Welfare is largely means tested and based on family size, meaning a family of X people receive $X until they earn above a certain amount.
  
  Not all jobs are living wage jobs, many are dumb-monkey jobs that aren’t worth the cost of automation. These jobs pay minimum wage or slightly higher, but they don’t pay the $X required to move a family of X entirely off welfare.

So ... how do you solve the problem? Do it Hastur’s way and simply say “No one with jobs gets welfare”? How does that play out? More people stay out of the job market and stay on welfare.

Attack the employer side? Say “You must pay anyone you hire enough to move them off government welfare rolls”? How does that play out? Elimination of all jobs that don’t pay $33k a year (or whatever the maximum welfare limit is for an unskilled worker with a family of 12)?

Trade offs have to be made with both approaches, and both trade offs seem to be worse than what we’re doing right now.

Either way, the larger point that dragged me down this rabbit hole in the first place was simply dispelling the idea Walmart/Amazon has a workforce *only* because taxpayers subsidize it. Taxpayers subsidizing the poor and businesses having dumb-monkey jobs with low pay are not correlated. Taxpayers are subsidizing the poor either way, and every job isn’t a living wage job. When a poor person takes a non-living wage job it’s not benefiting the business, who could’ve just as easily hired an unskilled worker who is not on welfare.

[Martin Hash]

Jobs are way more valuable to society than a means of transferring money from The Rich to everyone else; jobs instill Work Ethic, and that's worth a lot. Plus, unskilled, ridiculous people who can't do anything, need close and understanding management; how much is that worth? Some manager is willing to coach a dumbass everyday has value to society because The State sure as hell can't do it. It's unlikely those crappy jobs even pay for themselves with subsidies, but everyone should be expected to work in some fashion, and that requires shitty, low-end jobs that don't make sense unless all of the benefits to society are added together.

[Zlaxer]

Trade offs have to be made with both approaches, and both trade offs seem to be worse than what we’re doing right now.

Automation is causing cracks in the foundation of capitalism? ...wait...what?

[DBTrek]

Trade offs have to be made with both approaches, and both trade offs seem to be worse than what we’re doing right now.

Automation is causing cracks in the foundation of capitalism? ...wait...what?

Automation is a reality we’re going to have to reconcile ourselves with. Given the many trials we’ve faced before, including near-extinction, I reckon humanity is going to weather automation just fine.

[HarryK]

If we are speaking about Walmart and it’s expansion through the 50 states, that was a deal between the politicians and the company. Meaning the politicians get’s to tell their constituents “Look I’m providing new jobs so the population can afford the basic necessities and will not be forced to relocate.” But if you take a closer look, in a place like WalMart the vast majority of the jobs are part time, the costs of most basic necessities (rent, food, health insurance, etc.) far outpaces any little raise they get. Also WalMart negotiates their tax liability prior to opening any new store. So of course less money coming in the tax rolls puts the burden on any deficit on the citizens and not the corporation. From WalMart’s perspective it’s a great deal. From the politician’s perspective robbing Paul in order to pay Peter is the easiest way to remain re-elected.

Amazon is a different animal. Most workers on the line comes in as “temps” to limit the corporation’s liability in regards to health insurance and any other employment regulations via 3rd party hiring.

But in either WalMart’s and Amazon’s using the system to accumulate maximum profits, one wonders if the Benton’s and Bezos could take a little less in salary and “spread the wealth” just a smidge, workers would have a little more breathing room (ergo more money than month), tax rolls would be more stable, and thus less people being dependent upon the social welfare safety net.

However in reality, if WalMart and Amazon did this, their share price would take a hit and of course the CEO’s would take a much larger hit and thus the cycle of seldom continues.