4 ms·

> Amazon spokeswoman Melanie Etches said the figures were “misleading because they include people who only worked for Amazon for a short period of time and/or w

by pitaj 8y ago

> Amazon spokeswoman Melanie Etches said the figures were “misleading because they include people who only worked for Amazon for a short period of time and/or who chose to work part-time,” she said in a statement. “We have hundreds of full-time roles available, however, some prefer part-time for the flexibility or other personal reasons.” It's possible that some of these part-time people only work so much because of the welfare gap. If they worked more, they wouldn't get food stamps, but wouldn't make enough to both offset the cost of food and the opportunity cost of the time they'll spend working. A UBI would fix this issue if implemented correctly.

ljm 8y ago
> If implemented correctly Sadly the operative condition :( I feel like businesses should never have been able to grow so large that they can essentially make government useless. What you have now is a government that offers welfare (as precarious as that is in the US) and a profit-driven corporation seeing that as basically an offset of responsibility. Fuck over your staff and let the government that hates welfare pick up the tab; be dependent upon a job that gets far more out of you than you get out of them. In any sane world this is a gregarious abuse of corporate responsibility. In the more compassionate (i.e. socialist) places you do not get such a cut-throat attitude towards profit at any cost. And this is not big business in the US, it's the damned American Dream. You go from rags to riches, all fame and splendour and a hell of a struggle to talk about at the end of it. So you get every mom-and-pop shop and every other sole trader digging for prosperity the same way: pinch every penny you can, avoid paying your staff as much as you can, treat them as expendable, nothing is lost in the pursuit of wealth. You work hard by making others work harder for you. And everyone wants it because that's what greed is. Welfare gaps are not unique in the world, and neither is corporate exploitation, but what you have in the US is just a smooth veneer atop the roots of slavery; it's all money and property. You don't have to look hard to see that the language has changed but the dynamic has not. Not for a lot of people.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Corporate abuse of state power is emergent from and proportional to the power of the state in the first place. Only be reducing the power and scope of government can we hope to make meaningful change. The cronyists and politicians are part of a stable feedback loop to maintain the status quo. The state socializes risks and losses while the cronies keep the profits. The state created limited liability and "intellectual property", giving out monopolies and absolving those responsible of any repercussions.
  - PopsiclePete 8y ago
    Denmark is #2 on the list of "least corrupt countries". It's also very high on the "great place to do business" list, it also does really well when it comes to social mobility. Basically, all the things the US used to be good at, 40 years ago. Denmark is also, to the typical US Republican, a "socialist high-taxation hellhole". So I don't quite buy your libertarian "all government is bad" viewpoint, I don't buy it at all. Look at all the countries that are leading the world when it comes to quality of life, affordable health-care, high social mobility, low income inequality, non-intrusive bureaucracy - how many of those are right-wing libertarian leaning? I don't see any.
    - pitaj 8y ago
      > Denmark is #2 on the list of "least corrupt countries". It's also very high on the "great place to do business" list, it also does really well when it comes to social mobility. Basically, all the things the US used to be good at, 40 years ago. Denmark is also, to the typical US Republican, a "socialist high-taxation hellhole". Denmark is well above the US in rankings of economic freedom [1], which was exactly my point. While it does have high taxation, by some metrics it isn't that much worse than the US, especially including the rent-seeking parasites in our current complicated system. Supporting practical solutions in the size and scope of government includes things like tax reform, which is why I support removing all loopholes, rebates, and deductions. I'd like to see an income tax where you plug your income into a simple mathematical function, and it calculates what you must pay. > So I don't quite buy your libertarian "all government is bad" viewpoint, I don't buy it at all. My point is not that all government is bad (though there is an argument to be made), but that more government is generally worse. The more complicated, more taxes, more beurocracy, more military, more spending, etc, the worse it is for the people. > Look at all the countries that are leading the world when it comes to quality of life Standard of living is proportional to economic freedom > affordable health-care US health-care is a great example of how much damage government can do to the market. The fact that US healthcare isn't absolutely the worst is a testimony to how much punishment the market can take. > high social mobility, low income inequality, non-intrusive bureaucracy All proportional to or responsible for economic freedom > how many of those are right-wing libertarian leaning There's a good argument that while the welfare policies and whatnot are far in the other direction, these places actually have much more right-libertarian economic policy than the US. In fact, there's good evidence that the prosperity of these nations are because of previously much more libertarian policy in general. [1]: https://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark https://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark
intopieces 8y ago
A basic income for the poor already exists, it’s just a patchwork of various social services with tenuous political standing and a ton of bureaucracy. So, I agree. We ought to implement UBI and eliminate WIC, TANF, SSDI, SS, and SNAP. Give everyone $2k a month and tax the people who don’t need it.
- pitaj 8y ago
  The most important part of UBI is universal. I agree, we should replace all entitlements and welfare with it. My preference for an implementation is a negative income tax, as it utilizes existing infrastructure. In my opinion, UBI/NIT + tax simplicity would be a huge improvement for everyone.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The most important part of UBI is universal The U is the most important, but is more clear in the form where it is “unconditional”; it doesn't refer to replacing all other programs programs (particularly most visions do not have it replacing programs that are not means-tested benefit programs but instead are earned entitlements such as Social Security), it refers to the absence of means and behavior tests.
    - pitaj 8y ago
      I know it doesn't refer to replacing all other programs. Regardless, the idea of "earned entitlements" is a lie, and they should be ended. UBI being available in their place is a handy way to get rid of them.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Regardless, the idea of "earned entitlements" is a lie, No, it's not; they are earned and awarded based on past history of legally-defined creditable work, not based on need measures. (The portrayal sometimes made of them as self-funded mandatory investment vehicles is, at best, imprecise, but while tangentially related to th concept of an idea of an earned entitlement, it is not equivalent to it.) > and they should be ended. There may be an interesting debate there for each of them, but it is, at any rate, not part of the core argument for UBI. > UBI being available in their place is a handy way to get rid of them. I can't think of any earned entitlement (including ones that I think should be replaced by something other than an earned entitlement) for which a UBI offers a sensible replacement (and I support UBI), especially at any level we could reasonably expect to afford to provide benefits to the entire population anytime in in the next half century or so.
cma 8y ago
> A UBI would fix this issue if implemented correctly. So would just a gradual phase out of food stamp benefits as income rises.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So would just a gradual phase out of food stamp benefits as income rises. Since we have that now [0], and it manifestly doesn't solve the problem, the claim that just having it would solve the problem is proven false. [0] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...

by pitaj 8y ago

ljm 8y ago

> If implemented correctly Sadly the operative condition :( I feel like businesses should never have been able to grow so large that they can essentially make government useless. What you have now is a government that offers welfare (as precarious as that is in the US) and a profit-driven corporation seeing that as basically an offset of responsibility. Fuck over your staff and let the government that hates welfare pick up the tab; be dependent upon a job that gets far more out of you than you get out of them. In any sane world this is a gregarious abuse of corporate responsibility. In the more compassionate (i.e. socialist) places you do not get such a cut-throat attitude towards profit at any cost. And this is not big business in the US, it's the damned American Dream. You go from rags to riches, all fame and splendour and a hell of a struggle to talk about at the end of it. So you get every mom-and-pop shop and every other sole trader digging for prosperity the same way: pinch every penny you can, avoid paying your staff as much as you can, treat them as expendable, nothing is lost in the pursuit of wealth. You work hard by making others work harder for you. And everyone wants it because that's what greed is. Welfare gaps are not unique in the world, and neither is corporate exploitation, but what you have in the US is just a smooth veneer atop the roots of slavery; it's all money and property. You don't have to look hard to see that the language has changed but the dynamic has not. Not for a lot of people.

pitaj 8y ago
Corporate abuse of state power is emergent from and proportional to the power of the state in the first place. Only be reducing the power and scope of government can we hope to make meaningful change. The cronyists and politicians are part of a stable feedback loop to maintain the status quo. The state socializes risks and losses while the cronies keep the profits. The state created limited liability and "intellectual property", giving out monopolies and absolving those responsible of any repercussions.
- PopsiclePete 8y ago
  Denmark is #2 on the list of "least corrupt countries". It's also very high on the "great place to do business" list, it also does really well when it comes to social mobility. Basically, all the things the US used to be good at, 40 years ago. Denmark is also, to the typical US Republican, a "socialist high-taxation hellhole". So I don't quite buy your libertarian "all government is bad" viewpoint, I don't buy it at all. Look at all the countries that are leading the world when it comes to quality of life, affordable health-care, high social mobility, low income inequality, non-intrusive bureaucracy - how many of those are right-wing libertarian leaning? I don't see any.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    > Denmark is #2 on the list of "least corrupt countries". It's also very high on the "great place to do business" list, it also does really well when it comes to social mobility. Basically, all the things the US used to be good at, 40 years ago. Denmark is also, to the typical US Republican, a "socialist high-taxation hellhole". Denmark is well above the US in rankings of economic freedom [1], which was exactly my point. While it does have high taxation, by some metrics it isn't that much worse than the US, especially including the rent-seeking parasites in our current complicated system. Supporting practical solutions in the size and scope of government includes things like tax reform, which is why I support removing all loopholes, rebates, and deductions. I'd like to see an income tax where you plug your income into a simple mathematical function, and it calculates what you must pay. > So I don't quite buy your libertarian "all government is bad" viewpoint, I don't buy it at all. My point is not that all government is bad (though there is an argument to be made), but that more government is generally worse. The more complicated, more taxes, more beurocracy, more military, more spending, etc, the worse it is for the people. > Look at all the countries that are leading the world when it comes to quality of life Standard of living is proportional to economic freedom > affordable health-care US health-care is a great example of how much damage government can do to the market. The fact that US healthcare isn't absolutely the worst is a testimony to how much punishment the market can take. > high social mobility, low income inequality, non-intrusive bureaucracy All proportional to or responsible for economic freedom > how many of those are right-wing libertarian leaning There's a good argument that while the welfare policies and whatnot are far in the other direction, these places actually have much more right-libertarian economic policy than the US. In fact, there's good evidence that the prosperity of these nations are because of previously much more libertarian policy in general. [1]: https://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark https://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark

intopieces 8y ago

A basic income for the poor already exists, it’s just a patchwork of various social services with tenuous political standing and a ton of bureaucracy. So, I agree. We ought to implement UBI and eliminate WIC, TANF, SSDI, SS, and SNAP. Give everyone $2k a month and tax the people who don’t need it.

pitaj 8y ago
The most important part of UBI is universal. I agree, we should replace all entitlements and welfare with it. My preference for an implementation is a negative income tax, as it utilizes existing infrastructure. In my opinion, UBI/NIT + tax simplicity would be a huge improvement for everyone.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The most important part of UBI is universal The U is the most important, but is more clear in the form where it is “unconditional”; it doesn't refer to replacing all other programs programs (particularly most visions do not have it replacing programs that are not means-tested benefit programs but instead are earned entitlements such as Social Security), it refers to the absence of means and behavior tests.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    I know it doesn't refer to replacing all other programs. Regardless, the idea of "earned entitlements" is a lie, and they should be ended. UBI being available in their place is a handy way to get rid of them.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Regardless, the idea of "earned entitlements" is a lie, No, it's not; they are earned and awarded based on past history of legally-defined creditable work, not based on need measures. (The portrayal sometimes made of them as self-funded mandatory investment vehicles is, at best, imprecise, but while tangentially related to th concept of an idea of an earned entitlement, it is not equivalent to it.) > and they should be ended. There may be an interesting debate there for each of them, but it is, at any rate, not part of the core argument for UBI. > UBI being available in their place is a handy way to get rid of them. I can't think of any earned entitlement (including ones that I think should be replaced by something other than an earned entitlement) for which a UBI offers a sensible replacement (and I support UBI), especially at any level we could reasonably expect to afford to provide benefits to the entire population anytime in in the next half century or so.

cma 8y ago

> A UBI would fix this issue if implemented correctly. So would just a gradual phase out of food stamp benefits as income rises.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> So would just a gradual phase out of food stamp benefits as income rises. Since we have that now [0], and it manifestly doesn't solve the problem, the claim that just having it would solve the problem is proven false. [0] https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...