7 ms·

Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act

90 points by panarky 8y ago

ceautery 8y ago
Dick move, Bernie.
sharemywin 8y ago
while we're at it why stop at employee subsidies. Why do giant corps get any tax breaks or subsidies?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Separating "why" and "why should," multinationals get subsidies and tax breaks because they negotiate with governments, have leverage, and can "walk away." (to another country)
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    Maybe we should adopt something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    Also, maybe US patents(and other intellectual property) should be taxed regardless of where the corp is that owns them.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  You are actually onto something: it's a fairly common belief among economists that all subsidies and tax deductions should be eliminated. This probably isn't politically feasible at the moment though, so for now we have to take small victories where we can get them, like getting rid of the most obviously stupid and regressive subsidies.
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    I'm starting to think a nation sales tax were the rate is based on the revenue of the company would be helpful in companies getting too big and powerful.
- r00fus 8y ago
  It's a win-win for politicians and corporations. Everyone else loses. What's in it for the participating corporation? Well, money. For the politician, it can be one or more of the following: Fulfilling campaign promises (ie, "I brought jobs here"), legal money (ie, corporation pays into campaign PAC), or illicit money (which usually requires some laundering using casinos, real-estate or cryto to secretly fund).
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    People do get jobs, but it does end up being a race to the bottom.
phyzome 8y ago
Ha, I like it.
sesutton 8y ago
It seems like it would be far more efficient to just raise the minimum wage. But I guess that doesn't have a clever acronym.
- chadlavi 8y ago
  why actually help people when you can just try to hurt the guy on top?
  - castis 8y ago
    Yes, clearly the point of this bill is to directly hurt Jeff Bezos.
  - briffle 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean? This says nothing about stopping benefits for the people that receive them..
    - chadlavi 8y ago
      I guess what I meant is: I agree strongly with the comment I replied to, and also feel like this sort of action is less frequently concerned with lifting up workers than it is with punishing their bosses.
- devoply 8y ago
  Living wage is very dependent on geography. I don't think the federal government has the tools to enforce a living wage throughout America. This however sounds like a great idea that's difficult to argue against.
  - asn0 8y ago
    > Living wage is very dependent on geography. I don't think the federal government has the tools to enforce a living wage throughout America That makes sense, but seems like most of the political pressure to raise minimum wage is focused at the federal level. Does the issue of raising minimum wage get traction in state- or local-level politics, and just not get widely reported (aside from Seattle and a few other cities)?
anonymous5133 8y ago
So what exactly stops a "bad employer" from just putting more money into automation?
- dunpeal 8y ago
  If Amazon and Walmart could automate all these jobs, do you think they wouldn't have already?
  - bertil 8y ago
    My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. In practice, it’s a little more complicated than that because automation requires investments that are long to set-up, risky, etc. but there are reasons to believe that this suggestion, if it passes would have two effect: - accelerate automation overall; - convince Amazon to employ directly more of its workers (they are typically going through employment agencies at the moment) and re-think its schedules. The dirty secret of that industry is that Amazon would like people to come at certain hours but doesn’t really think beyond its operations, partially because they have an arms-length relationship with temporary workers. Agencies are all too willing to comply, and force powerless temp workers into the grinder, arguing that they are just bowing to “the market”. The layers of bureaucracy prevents Amazon from raising internally the point that shifts at reasonable hours, with breaks. This means employees can think more critically of their job, and contribute greatly to innovation.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      > My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. Human labor is so far behind machine labor, that raising its cost by a little bit won't make much of a difference. When it comes to manual labor, machines are so much cheaper, more efficient, cheaper, less risky (medically, legally, criminally), stable, and reliable, that there's no comparison really. Big companies like Amazon therefore automate wherever they can already. Based on articles about their fulfillment centers, the only jobs remaining there are those robots don't do very well right now. These will eventually disappear regardless of the passage of provocatively-titled PR-focused laws (which probably won't pass anyway in current congress). I'm not sure I understand your second point, especially how relevant it is to the current discussion. This is about Amazon compensating employees with such minimal and pay and benefits that they must seek welfare assistance and thus effectively are paid by the taxpayer. Working conditions have nothing to do with that, although (obviously) the same weak employees (or "contractors") who receive so little pay will receive little consideration in these and other regards as well.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lbearl 8y ago
The big problem that immediately pops up to me is: a good chunk of the examples of low wage workers are in fast-food (i.e. the McDonald's example). Just about every fast food company out there is a franchise, and I'd be very surprised if there are more than a couple of franchisees which have over 500 employees.
- theandrewbailey 8y ago
  From the link: > Under this legislation, large employers are defined as employers who have more than 500 employees, including part -time workers, independent contractors and franchise workers. I'm not an expert in legalese (and this isn't the legislation itself), but the last two words imply that McDonald Corporate would be on the hook for franchisee's employee's food stamps.
  - lbearl 8y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out, that seems to patch up that rather large hole in the proposed legislation.
robdachshund 8y ago
What about that vacation home he subsidized by embezzling money from a university with his wife?
nappy 8y ago
I don't understand this legislation or this perspective. If it is the job of the government to provide a strong safetey net, then it shouldn't be incumbent on private employers to do so. Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its employees? If a job is beneficially for the economy, and individual, and an employer, though not enough to keep someone out of poverty - this is precisely when government programs should fill in the gap. And I would think should be the perspective of someone who calls themselves a "Democratic Socialist." A huge part of the problem with how healthcare and labor benefits are handled in the United States is exactly this - that they are far to tied to an individual's job. Divorcing them actually helps all parties. Most developed nations operate this way. Naming this legislation after Bezos is petty and vindictive. It's below the office of a Senator, and a bad precedent to set to using the power of lawmaking to single out individuals.
- Udik 8y ago
  > Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its employees? I don't think it should; but on the other end, why would people work for Walmart if the salary it offers is not enough to survive? And why should Walmart rely on the subsidies offered by the state to integrate the shitty wages it's paying? In other words, the employees work for you, you are the one who should pay them- subsidies are altering this balance. (Ah, and tips too, my other little obsession. Otherwise I'll bring my own waiter, thank you). Of course the state should provide a "safety net"- which for me includes full, free, high quality medical assistance, education, and maybe some for of low rent housing. But that's about it.
  - epicureanideal 8y ago
    Education is a tricky one. In general I tend to agree, but distributing the cost of a person's decision to get a 4 year degree in Photography, and then get a job at Starbucks they could've gotten without that degree, seems unjust and unwise. And who decides which schools lead to good outcomes? A lot of the "for profit" schools are only a little better than diploma mills.
- bertil 8y ago
radium3d 8y ago
I can see the point, but the cheaper option for the corporation is still to pay the tax vs paying a living wage because not all employees will be using the federal support.
epicureanideal 8y ago
Hmm... This actually makes sense. And seems like it would make sense from any party's perspective... Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green... If anyone opposes this I'd love to know why. But I don't see why Bezos in particular is singled out.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
1. Haha I wish congress was as good at legislating as it was at naming. 2. The way I see it the ideological argument that will probably spring from this has no way of being settled. This bill is basically a stealth minimum wage. Economic evidence provides enough studies on both sides of the issue that everyone can fight it out, cite one or two things and go home believing exactly what they already thought. 3. Why the 500 employee minimum? I'm not sure I see the rationale behind my tax dollars subsidizing any business that doesn't pay their employees a living wage, not just the big ones.
dang 8y ago
Clever title, but "politician introduces a bill" is a leading class of non-story (because most proposed bills go nowhere). This is even more dilute that: it's an announcement that a politician will introduce a bill. In other words, it's an announcement of an announcement, the most off-topic of offtopicness.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > and this is a politician announcing that he will introduce a bill. While technically true at the time the linked summary was written, the bill has in fact been introduced and this is a summary of it as well a statement that it will be introduced. Whether or not it is “evidence of some interesting new phenomenon” is, I would agree, debatable.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
oh-moses 8y ago
> Additionally, the bill makes it unlawful for a large employer to ask employees whether or not they qualify for federal benefits. …But then how would the employer's tax department know how much to pay in the proposed tax?
zaroth 8y ago
My first thought was that since the welfare benefits to the employee are tax free this becomes a (marginally) more effective way to “pay” your low-wage employees. But the marginal tax rate at that part of the curve, taking into account the EITC is close enough to zero that it’s not an issue. I like the plan, I think that it needs a slight tweak. The fine should be 200% of the subsidy, and perhaps it should only apply to workers working at least 20 hours a week.
- mabramo 8y ago
  Do you mean workers working 20 hours a weeks total or 20 hours a week at a particular employer? There are plenty of individuals who work multiple jobs, still get only 30-some hours, and still collect public assistance. Seems like a needless clause.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    Who pays the fine if you work 3 jobs 15 hours a week each? If they are all large employers — all 3 of them? Remember this doesn’t change anything about what the employee is paid, it’s a fine for paying an employee too little to be self sufficient. I’m not sure that makes sense if someone is only working for you one day a week, for example.
harryh 8y ago
These aren't employer subsidies, and calling them such is a lie. The money doesn't go to the companies. We have decided that there should be a minimum standard of living for people that live in the US. Paying for that decision falls on all of us, not just the companies that happen to employ those with lower paying jobs. This is essentially a special tax on companies that happen to have business models that require low skill labor. Why should companies(1) with business models that only require high skill labor get off the hook when it comes to paying their fare share of the bill for our countries social services? 1. or more correctly those companies stockholders and employees
- twoodfin 8y ago
  I agree the logic of calling market wages a "subsidy" doesn't hang together. I wonder where this idea originated; its frequent appearance in labor policy debates seems recent.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I agree the logic of calling market wages a "subsidy" doesn't hang together. That's not what is being called a subsidy. Federal benefits to low-wage workers are being called a subsidy that reduces wage demands in the market. Other than EITC (which actually does act as a wage subsidy in a certain range), that's a problematic claim, too, but it's a different claim than that market wages are a subsidy.
- devoply 8y ago
  > We have decided that there should be a minimum standard of living for people that live in the US. We have decided no such thing. People need shelter food and clothing, these are necessities. We have decided a bare minimum of those necessities that people have a right to have. Either employers pay for these, or governments pay for these. Without them people don't have enough food to eat, don't have shelter to live, or clothing to wear.
  - harryh 8y ago
    Yes, the minimum standard that we have decided upon today includes necessities like shelter, food, and clothing plus a bit more than that. The various welfare programs provided by our federal and state governments are how that standard is met.
andrew_ 8y ago
Clever alternative to raising the minimum wage by a large amount. The Libertarian in me sees a possibility that this will reduce the government's burden and (potentially) reduce social services by a teensy amount. Surely there are detriments I haven't considered, and please do share them if any come to mind.
- harryh 8y ago
  It's a large intervention into the free market and a significant tax distortion. Why should companies that employ lower skill workers pay higher taxes than those that employ higher skilled workers?
  - andrew_ 8y ago
    Excellent question. Slight tangent, but in many states (Michigan is one) there are already disproportionate worker's compensation taxes based upon the risk factors of the occupation and environment - so there is precedent for that sort of thing.
    - harryh 8y ago
      Worker's comp payments aren't really tax payments. They're insurance premium payments to cover the costs of on the job injuries.
dcole2929 8y ago
Very interesting idea on the service, that will never pass. Anyone with a vested interest in a large company, (e.g. almost everyone in congress) will have every incentive to see this thing die as quickly as possible. Also I'm not even sure it's a good idea to begin with. Color me intrigued though
maxxxxx 8y ago
I am little disappointed with Sanders that he has failed to build a real movement. I like a lot of the things he does but he is pretty much alone. Compared to the way Trump has bent the Republicans to his will it's disappointing. This is a nice stunt but nobody in Congress will have the balls to vote for it.
- mabramo 8y ago
  Why is your disappointment in Sanders? Do you not remember the momentum he generated in 2016? Shouldn't your disappointment be directed at his peers?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    He didn't use that momentum to make a real impact. Now the democrats look as clueless as they looked in 2016. They still don't have a real value proposition other than not being Trump. They can't just stay being the party for the upper middle class without appealing to blue collar workers. Say what you want about Obama but at least he had a message. Maybe Sanders never aspired to be a national leader and that should be respected but it's still disappointing.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      > He didn't use that momentum to make a real impact. Sanders has used his platform to continue to advocate for Medicare For All, for a $15/hr minimum wage (a concession he was able to get for Disneyland employees), for renewable energy, for justice reform, for immigration reform. What else would you suggest he do? He has been more positively impactful than any politician currently in office except perhaps Senator Warren. > Now the democrats look as clueless as they looked in 2016. They still don't have a real value proposition other than not being Trump. Medicare For All, a $15 hour minimum wage, fully funded public schools and universities, justice reform, immigration reform, paid family and sick leave (not an exhaustive list) is not a value proposition? Democrats clueless? Progressive candidates continue to win in elections at every level. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is crushing it. As long as the Clintons, Biden, and other moderates keep to themselves, we'll be fine.
niceperson 8y ago
fucking commies
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
tootie 8y ago
I'm curious what the macroeconomic effect would be. Is this just shifting public costs to private companies? Workers actual compensation wouldn't change since they would lose government benefits as their wages increase.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  For all those that assert gov't is inefficient, and that businesses are better at optimization, then shifting equivalent public costs to private company scope should be an economic win.
decacorn 8y ago
My first thought is Bezos has probably dispatched aggressive lobbyists to try to kill this bill. America will only continue to become more corporately corrupt until we have a Congress with enough backbone to PERMANENTLY BAN all forms of lobbying and limit congressional term limits immediately. The American dream isn't to monopolize the entire country with 3 or 4 mega corporations. CALL YOUR SENATORS.
phakding 8y ago
I would surprised if this bill passes both houses of congress and then is signed by trump. Nothing that helps poor/middle class Americans would be of any interest to the right wing crony capitalists in this country.
aresant 8y ago
For as much as the Democrats have been screaming about a need to return to civility naming the act after a private citizen, richest man or not, is too funny. Compared to - say - the legislation resulting from the sub-prime crisis - in which powerful individuals at the head of national and global banking systems (and governments) almost ended the world as we know it. Anyways, of course the actual brief doesn't actually reference how much Amazon employees are currently being subsidized (vs referenceing Walmart's $6.2b), because this isn't about the dollars and cents, it's about rushing something through on the back of bad press and Trump's tweetstorms. The government grows unto itself, shoot first, aim later.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > For as much as the Democrats have been screaming about a need to return to civility Democrats have not generally been screaming about a need to return to civility, they've been screaming about a need to return to estsblished substantive and procedural norms. Republicans have been demanding civility as a means of deflecting the increasingly strenuous objections on those issues.
Shivetya 8y ago
(besides the obvious political grandstanding timing of it) Simply put, no. It is not the responsibility of employers to ensure that any job they offer provides sufficient compensation to an employee to live where they want. Government actions have done far more damage and kept more people in poor financial straights than lack of pay. From the over zealous war on drugs to fund the politically powerful police and sheriff unions to the expense of the public employee pension systems which have driven up the cost of local government services, fees, and licensing, all at the cost of helping those in need.
- Falling3 8y ago
  >Government actions have done far more damage and kept more people in poor financial straights than lack of pay. From the over zealous war on drugs to fund the politically powerful police and sheriff unions I'm not disagreeing with your premise completely, but conflating policies that are genuinely meant to help the working poor and policies that are specifically meant to harm people (the war on drugs being an excellent example) is dishonest and unhelpful.
cabaalis 8y ago
> The fact is if employers in this country simply paid workers a living wage, taxpayers would save about $150 billion a year on federal assistance programs. I'm not at all convinced that removing people from federal assistance programs (i.e. necessitating a need for a reduction in those programs' budgets) would in fact directly result in less taxes being paid by me. > This bill would establish a corporate welfare tax on large employers equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wage workers. But it does not establish a means to reduce my tax burden whatsoever. I feel this is a valid criticism as the basis of the argument is that it's costing "the taxpayers." Well, I'm a taxpayer. I'm a shareholder in this organization, what's my get? I'm seeing large corps raising prices to offset the new tax, no new benefits for the underprivileged it's supposed to be helping, and no reduction in my personal costs. The net to me of that arrangement is less money in my pocket due to increased prices at the big companies. > Large companies, not taxpayers, should be required to pay for federal public assistance programs that their employees are eligible to receive. No, the system should be setup such that taxes are fair and equitable enough to cover the operating costs of the government. I'm seeing way too much of an "us" vs "them" in this arrangement, which I'm not surprised by given who is proposing it. > The Stop Bezos Act gives large employers a choice: pay workers a living wage or pay for the public assistance programs low-wage workers are forced to rely upon. We have no constitutional right to "living wage" and for the government to attempt to enforce a right that does not exist is a problem. I'll leave that argument at that.
dragonwriter 8y ago
As political grandstanding to rally the base around an issue and highlight a contrast between the sympathies of your faction and an opposing one to mobilize voters, it's not too bad. As substantive policy its a nightmare than would crush the people it purports to be aimed at helping, though, and the danger of grandstanding like this is it can get out of control and build the kind of support for the policy that makes it politically irresistible so that it gets adopted, at least in outline. I wonder how much of this is the Sanders camp being concerned that Warren had gotten way ahead of them with her recent moves (which are nearly as good as grandstanding and much better as substantive policy.) There's clearly a (mostly friendly, perhaps, but still intense) competition to be the standard bearer of the economic progressive faction of the Democratic Party going into the 2020 cycle. Electoral maneuvering aside, the simple solution to the policy problem this is aimed at is reducing the preference for capital income over labor income in the tax system, which makes hiring labor at any given wage level less expensive, and thereby more competitive with capital-intensive automation.
paulus_magnus2 8y ago
Wages are as low as employers can get away with. The problem would disappear if all workers had 10 employers to choose from. Lack of demand for labour is due to not enough market competition. We need to push corporations into a innovation race toward better products. Elon Musk is disrupting the auto industry, same thing needs to happen for every industry with entrenched rent-seeking players who drag their feet.
- panarky 8y ago
  > Wages are as low as employers can get away with Monopsony: a market structure in which a few buyers substantially control the market as the major purchasers of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers.
- kakwa_ 8y ago
  Are we talking about the same Elon Musk that creates companies with really bad workers conditions? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-wor... Disrupting a market as nothing to do with wages. Amazon did disrupt the retail industry, but the workers conditions and wages are bad. The "disrupt" aspect can also lead to a quasi monopoly situation (Facebook, Google), so much for market competition... Also competition in low margin markets tends to be a driver for lower wages, not higher wages. High demand in a market can drive higher wages, not competition. Tech workers have the luxury to choose from dozen employers because: 1) it takes years to train a CS engineer and it takes weeks if not months to get him up to speed in most companies (due to the immaturity of the industry IMHO), so you want to retain him. 2) there is a shortage of tech workers. 3) there is a bubble with a ton of money poured into it. 4) the tech industry is high margin, with a marginal cost for a unit (either a software copy or a new customer in a service) generally quite close to zero. Basically successful tech companies earn more money that they know want to do with. This is an exceptional situation. The real issue is that wage inequalities are growing quite significantly, and as a consequence, capital inequalities are becoming absolutely huge. It's a snowball effect. And with a lot of money, specific individuals/companies can heavily influence political and societal decisions/opinions (by owning newspapers, tv channels... by financing political parties/campaigns, by lobbying heavily the law makers). We are slowly but surely returning to a wealth distribution and monopoly situation as seen in the 19th century (Albeit with a far better material situation (food security, hygiene/health, education...) for nearly everyone on Earth due to the scientific and technical improvements over the past 2 centuries) This situation is a societal decision: do we accept that in a society with the global means and wealth for everybody to have food, a roof, medical care and education, they are still hardworking people on the brink of poverty? If the answer is no, it should be translated in political decision/laws (minimal wage or maybe universal income/social security/free education...).
legatus 8y ago
Why has this thread disappeared from the front page? By the way, the link results, for me, in "Sorry, a potential security risk was detected in your submitted request. The Webmaster has been alerted. "
- anothergoogler 8y ago
  It's the old HN shuffle: Flag controversial thread off the front page, mark unflagged as dupe of flagged/aged thread that can no longer surface.
  - legatus 8y ago
    Does it result in the error for you too? Maybe it's related to that, otherwise it's really suspicious.
  - dang 8y ago
    In this case it's the "old HN shuffle" of not having off-topic stories, as I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681
    - anothergoogler 8y ago
      I didn't mean to ascribe intent. I wrote more earlier in a reply attempt, but it was blocked ("you're posting too much" karma penalty message).
- harryh 8y ago
  It looks like dang (a HN employee) moderated it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681
  - legatus 8y ago
    Oh I see, thanks for pointing it out! Hasn't it been introduced though? I'm not really a U.S. law expert, so I have trouble understanding. Isn't this the bill? (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/stop-bezos-act-2018?id=C2E88AC5-C629-4680-8F8D-9EE74F343560&download=1&inline=file https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/stop-bezos-act-2018?...)
kangnkodos 8y ago
Unintended consequence - workers who are sick or have large families and need government aid get fired. The goal is good. But this exact method is flawed.
thucydidesofusa 8y ago
Is anyone talking about how this incentivizes employers to select employees who are less likely to be on / enroll in public assistance? If a teenager and a single mom are going for the same job and the single mom uses welfare more intensely, the employer will have an incentive to select against the single mom because she uses welfare.
tzs 8y ago
I have no idea how accurate this analysis is, but it was interesting (found in discussion of this on /r/technology): https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/9a3sjh/old_man_yells_at_amazon_cloud/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/9a3sjh/old_ma... Anyone who knows economics here who can comment on whether that is a good argument or not?
anthroprose 8y ago
I'm not exactly sure how this could even be implemented. Take the sharing economy into account: Lyft/Uber InstaCart/Pizza Delivery Seasonal Workers such as Amazon Warehouse associates McDonalds/Walmart flex scheduling shifts "involuntary part time" Say an average person for this particular sharing economy example include two or three part-time jobs throughout the year. The person starts the year as a seasonal worker for amazon (christmas rush into new years) 160hours total, they then receive unemployment payments for a period of time. Later they become a part time employee of Walmart stocking late at night (400 hours). Finally they drive for both Uber and Lyft depending on customer volume to fill in the time they are not receiving shifts from Walmart (250hours). According to this bill, there is no logical way to split the federal benefits as defines (school lunch, housing subsidies, SNAP and medicaid. The unemployment is paid from employer's insurance. Is the total amount of tax for each employer simply divided by the number of hours employed? Seems like its being left up to the IRS in order to figure out the implementation.
RhysU 8y ago
Bezos, just to make a point, should stop doing business in and with entities from Vermont.

90 points by panarky 8y ago

ceautery 8y ago

Dick move, Bernie.

sharemywin 8y ago

while we're at it why stop at employee subsidies. Why do giant corps get any tax breaks or subsidies?

whatshisface 8y ago
Separating "why" and "why should," multinationals get subsidies and tax breaks because they negotiate with governments, have leverage, and can "walk away." (to another country)
- sharemywin 8y ago
  Maybe we should adopt something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax
- sharemywin 8y ago
  Also, maybe US patents(and other intellectual property) should be taxed regardless of where the corp is that owns them.
Analemma_ 8y ago
You are actually onto something: it's a fairly common belief among economists that all subsidies and tax deductions should be eliminated. This probably isn't politically feasible at the moment though, so for now we have to take small victories where we can get them, like getting rid of the most obviously stupid and regressive subsidies.
- sharemywin 8y ago
  I'm starting to think a nation sales tax were the rate is based on the revenue of the company would be helpful in companies getting too big and powerful.
r00fus 8y ago
It's a win-win for politicians and corporations. Everyone else loses. What's in it for the participating corporation? Well, money. For the politician, it can be one or more of the following: Fulfilling campaign promises (ie, "I brought jobs here"), legal money (ie, corporation pays into campaign PAC), or illicit money (which usually requires some laundering using casinos, real-estate or cryto to secretly fund).
- sharemywin 8y ago
  People do get jobs, but it does end up being a race to the bottom.

phyzome 8y ago

Ha, I like it.

sesutton 8y ago

It seems like it would be far more efficient to just raise the minimum wage. But I guess that doesn't have a clever acronym.

chadlavi 8y ago
why actually help people when you can just try to hurt the guy on top?
- castis 8y ago
  Yes, clearly the point of this bill is to directly hurt Jeff Bezos.
- briffle 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean? This says nothing about stopping benefits for the people that receive them..
  - chadlavi 8y ago
    I guess what I meant is: I agree strongly with the comment I replied to, and also feel like this sort of action is less frequently concerned with lifting up workers than it is with punishing their bosses.
devoply 8y ago
Living wage is very dependent on geography. I don't think the federal government has the tools to enforce a living wage throughout America. This however sounds like a great idea that's difficult to argue against.
- asn0 8y ago
  > Living wage is very dependent on geography. I don't think the federal government has the tools to enforce a living wage throughout America That makes sense, but seems like most of the political pressure to raise minimum wage is focused at the federal level. Does the issue of raising minimum wage get traction in state- or local-level politics, and just not get widely reported (aside from Seattle and a few other cities)?

anonymous5133 8y ago

So what exactly stops a "bad employer" from just putting more money into automation?

dunpeal 8y ago
If Amazon and Walmart could automate all these jobs, do you think they wouldn't have already?
- bertil 8y ago
  My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. In practice, it’s a little more complicated than that because automation requires investments that are long to set-up, risky, etc. but there are reasons to believe that this suggestion, if it passes would have two effect: - accelerate automation overall; - convince Amazon to employ directly more of its workers (they are typically going through employment agencies at the moment) and re-think its schedules. The dirty secret of that industry is that Amazon would like people to come at certain hours but doesn’t really think beyond its operations, partially because they have an arms-length relationship with temporary workers. Agencies are all too willing to comply, and force powerless temp workers into the grinder, arguing that they are just bowing to “the market”. The layers of bureaucracy prevents Amazon from raising internally the point that shifts at reasonable hours, with breaks. This means employees can think more critically of their job, and contribute greatly to innovation.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. Human labor is so far behind machine labor, that raising its cost by a little bit won't make much of a difference. When it comes to manual labor, machines are so much cheaper, more efficient, cheaper, less risky (medically, legally, criminally), stable, and reliable, that there's no comparison really. Big companies like Amazon therefore automate wherever they can already. Based on articles about their fulfillment centers, the only jobs remaining there are those robots don't do very well right now. These will eventually disappear regardless of the passage of provocatively-titled PR-focused laws (which probably won't pass anyway in current congress). I'm not sure I understand your second point, especially how relevant it is to the current discussion. This is about Amazon compensating employees with such minimal and pay and benefits that they must seek welfare assistance and thus effectively are paid by the taxpayer. Working conditions have nothing to do with that, although (obviously) the same weak employees (or "contractors") who receive so little pay will receive little consideration in these and other regards as well.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lbearl 8y ago

The big problem that immediately pops up to me is: a good chunk of the examples of low wage workers are in fast-food (i.e. the McDonald's example). Just about every fast food company out there is a franchise, and I'd be very surprised if there are more than a couple of franchisees which have over 500 employees.

theandrewbailey 8y ago
From the link: > Under this legislation, large employers are defined as employers who have more than 500 employees, including part -time workers, independent contractors and franchise workers. I'm not an expert in legalese (and this isn't the legislation itself), but the last two words imply that McDonald Corporate would be on the hook for franchisee's employee's food stamps.
- lbearl 8y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out, that seems to patch up that rather large hole in the proposed legislation.

robdachshund 8y ago

What about that vacation home he subsidized by embezzling money from a university with his wife?

nappy 8y ago

I don't understand this legislation or this perspective. If it is the job of the government to provide a strong safetey net, then it shouldn't be incumbent on private employers to do so. Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its employees? If a job is beneficially for the economy, and individual, and an employer, though not enough to keep someone out of poverty - this is precisely when government programs should fill in the gap. And I would think should be the perspective of someone who calls themselves a "Democratic Socialist." A huge part of the problem with how healthcare and labor benefits are handled in the United States is exactly this - that they are far to tied to an individual's job. Divorcing them actually helps all parties. Most developed nations operate this way. Naming this legislation after Bezos is petty and vindictive. It's below the office of a Senator, and a bad precedent to set to using the power of lawmaking to single out individuals.

Udik 8y ago
> Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its employees? I don't think it should; but on the other end, why would people work for Walmart if the salary it offers is not enough to survive? And why should Walmart rely on the subsidies offered by the state to integrate the shitty wages it's paying? In other words, the employees work for you, you are the one who should pay them- subsidies are altering this balance. (Ah, and tips too, my other little obsession. Otherwise I'll bring my own waiter, thank you). Of course the state should provide a "safety net"- which for me includes full, free, high quality medical assistance, education, and maybe some for of low rent housing. But that's about it.
- epicureanideal 8y ago
  Education is a tricky one. In general I tend to agree, but distributing the cost of a person's decision to get a 4 year degree in Photography, and then get a job at Starbucks they could've gotten without that degree, seems unjust and unwise. And who decides which schools lead to good outcomes? A lot of the "for profit" schools are only a little better than diploma mills.
bertil 8y ago

radium3d 8y ago

I can see the point, but the cheaper option for the corporation is still to pay the tax vs paying a living wage because not all employees will be using the federal support.

epicureanideal 8y ago

Hmm... This actually makes sense. And seems like it would make sense from any party's perspective... Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green... If anyone opposes this I'd love to know why. But I don't see why Bezos in particular is singled out.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

1. Haha I wish congress was as good at legislating as it was at naming. 2. The way I see it the ideological argument that will probably spring from this has no way of being settled. This bill is basically a stealth minimum wage. Economic evidence provides enough studies on both sides of the issue that everyone can fight it out, cite one or two things and go home believing exactly what they already thought. 3. Why the 500 employee minimum? I'm not sure I see the rationale behind my tax dollars subsidizing any business that doesn't pay their employees a living wage, not just the big ones.

dang 8y ago

Clever title, but "politician introduces a bill" is a leading class of non-story (because most proposed bills go nowhere). This is even more dilute that: it's an announcement that a politician will introduce a bill. In other words, it's an announcement of an announcement, the most off-topic of offtopicness.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> and this is a politician announcing that he will introduce a bill. While technically true at the time the linked summary was written, the bill has in fact been introduced and this is a summary of it as well a statement that it will be introduced. Whether or not it is “evidence of some interesting new phenomenon” is, I would agree, debatable.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

oh-moses 8y ago

> Additionally, the bill makes it unlawful for a large employer to ask employees whether or not they qualify for federal benefits. …But then how would the employer's tax department know how much to pay in the proposed tax?

zaroth 8y ago

My first thought was that since the welfare benefits to the employee are tax free this becomes a (marginally) more effective way to “pay” your low-wage employees. But the marginal tax rate at that part of the curve, taking into account the EITC is close enough to zero that it’s not an issue. I like the plan, I think that it needs a slight tweak. The fine should be 200% of the subsidy, and perhaps it should only apply to workers working at least 20 hours a week.

mabramo 8y ago
Do you mean workers working 20 hours a weeks total or 20 hours a week at a particular employer? There are plenty of individuals who work multiple jobs, still get only 30-some hours, and still collect public assistance. Seems like a needless clause.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Who pays the fine if you work 3 jobs 15 hours a week each? If they are all large employers — all 3 of them? Remember this doesn’t change anything about what the employee is paid, it’s a fine for paying an employee too little to be self sufficient. I’m not sure that makes sense if someone is only working for you one day a week, for example.

harryh 8y ago

These aren't employer subsidies, and calling them such is a lie. The money doesn't go to the companies. We have decided that there should be a minimum standard of living for people that live in the US. Paying for that decision falls on all of us, not just the companies that happen to employ those with lower paying jobs. This is essentially a special tax on companies that happen to have business models that require low skill labor. Why should companies(1) with business models that only require high skill labor get off the hook when it comes to paying their fare share of the bill for our countries social services? 1. or more correctly those companies stockholders and employees

twoodfin 8y ago
I agree the logic of calling market wages a "subsidy" doesn't hang together. I wonder where this idea originated; its frequent appearance in labor policy debates seems recent.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I agree the logic of calling market wages a "subsidy" doesn't hang together. That's not what is being called a subsidy. Federal benefits to low-wage workers are being called a subsidy that reduces wage demands in the market. Other than EITC (which actually does act as a wage subsidy in a certain range), that's a problematic claim, too, but it's a different claim than that market wages are a subsidy.
devoply 8y ago
> We have decided that there should be a minimum standard of living for people that live in the US. We have decided no such thing. People need shelter food and clothing, these are necessities. We have decided a bare minimum of those necessities that people have a right to have. Either employers pay for these, or governments pay for these. Without them people don't have enough food to eat, don't have shelter to live, or clothing to wear.
- harryh 8y ago
  Yes, the minimum standard that we have decided upon today includes necessities like shelter, food, and clothing plus a bit more than that. The various welfare programs provided by our federal and state governments are how that standard is met.

andrew_ 8y ago

Clever alternative to raising the minimum wage by a large amount. The Libertarian in me sees a possibility that this will reduce the government's burden and (potentially) reduce social services by a teensy amount. Surely there are detriments I haven't considered, and please do share them if any come to mind.

harryh 8y ago
It's a large intervention into the free market and a significant tax distortion. Why should companies that employ lower skill workers pay higher taxes than those that employ higher skilled workers?
- andrew_ 8y ago
  Excellent question. Slight tangent, but in many states (Michigan is one) there are already disproportionate worker's compensation taxes based upon the risk factors of the occupation and environment - so there is precedent for that sort of thing.
  - harryh 8y ago
    Worker's comp payments aren't really tax payments. They're insurance premium payments to cover the costs of on the job injuries.

dcole2929 8y ago

Very interesting idea on the service, that will never pass. Anyone with a vested interest in a large company, (e.g. almost everyone in congress) will have every incentive to see this thing die as quickly as possible. Also I'm not even sure it's a good idea to begin with. Color me intrigued though

maxxxxx 8y ago

I am little disappointed with Sanders that he has failed to build a real movement. I like a lot of the things he does but he is pretty much alone. Compared to the way Trump has bent the Republicans to his will it's disappointing. This is a nice stunt but nobody in Congress will have the balls to vote for it.

mabramo 8y ago
Why is your disappointment in Sanders? Do you not remember the momentum he generated in 2016? Shouldn't your disappointment be directed at his peers?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  He didn't use that momentum to make a real impact. Now the democrats look as clueless as they looked in 2016. They still don't have a real value proposition other than not being Trump. They can't just stay being the party for the upper middle class without appealing to blue collar workers. Say what you want about Obama but at least he had a message. Maybe Sanders never aspired to be a national leader and that should be respected but it's still disappointing.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > He didn't use that momentum to make a real impact. Sanders has used his platform to continue to advocate for Medicare For All, for a $15/hr minimum wage (a concession he was able to get for Disneyland employees), for renewable energy, for justice reform, for immigration reform. What else would you suggest he do? He has been more positively impactful than any politician currently in office except perhaps Senator Warren. > Now the democrats look as clueless as they looked in 2016. They still don't have a real value proposition other than not being Trump. Medicare For All, a $15 hour minimum wage, fully funded public schools and universities, justice reform, immigration reform, paid family and sick leave (not an exhaustive list) is not a value proposition? Democrats clueless? Progressive candidates continue to win in elections at every level. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is crushing it. As long as the Clintons, Biden, and other moderates keep to themselves, we'll be fine.

niceperson 8y ago

fucking commies

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

tootie 8y ago

I'm curious what the macroeconomic effect would be. Is this just shifting public costs to private companies? Workers actual compensation wouldn't change since they would lose government benefits as their wages increase.

dv_dt 8y ago
For all those that assert gov't is inefficient, and that businesses are better at optimization, then shifting equivalent public costs to private company scope should be an economic win.

decacorn 8y ago

My first thought is Bezos has probably dispatched aggressive lobbyists to try to kill this bill. America will only continue to become more corporately corrupt until we have a Congress with enough backbone to PERMANENTLY BAN all forms of lobbying and limit congressional term limits immediately. The American dream isn't to monopolize the entire country with 3 or 4 mega corporations. CALL YOUR SENATORS.

phakding 8y ago

I would surprised if this bill passes both houses of congress and then is signed by trump. Nothing that helps poor/middle class Americans would be of any interest to the right wing crony capitalists in this country.

aresant 8y ago

For as much as the Democrats have been screaming about a need to return to civility naming the act after a private citizen, richest man or not, is too funny. Compared to - say - the legislation resulting from the sub-prime crisis - in which powerful individuals at the head of national and global banking systems (and governments) almost ended the world as we know it. Anyways, of course the actual brief doesn't actually reference how much Amazon employees are currently being subsidized (vs referenceing Walmart's $6.2b), because this isn't about the dollars and cents, it's about rushing something through on the back of bad press and Trump's tweetstorms. The government grows unto itself, shoot first, aim later.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> For as much as the Democrats have been screaming about a need to return to civility Democrats have not generally been screaming about a need to return to civility, they've been screaming about a need to return to estsblished substantive and procedural norms. Republicans have been demanding civility as a means of deflecting the increasingly strenuous objections on those issues.

Shivetya 8y ago

(besides the obvious political grandstanding timing of it) Simply put, no. It is not the responsibility of employers to ensure that any job they offer provides sufficient compensation to an employee to live where they want. Government actions have done far more damage and kept more people in poor financial straights than lack of pay. From the over zealous war on drugs to fund the politically powerful police and sheriff unions to the expense of the public employee pension systems which have driven up the cost of local government services, fees, and licensing, all at the cost of helping those in need.

Falling3 8y ago
>Government actions have done far more damage and kept more people in poor financial straights than lack of pay. From the over zealous war on drugs to fund the politically powerful police and sheriff unions I'm not disagreeing with your premise completely, but conflating policies that are genuinely meant to help the working poor and policies that are specifically meant to harm people (the war on drugs being an excellent example) is dishonest and unhelpful.

cabaalis 8y ago

> The fact is if employers in this country simply paid workers a living wage, taxpayers would save about $150 billion a year on federal assistance programs. I'm not at all convinced that removing people from federal assistance programs (i.e. necessitating a need for a reduction in those programs' budgets) would in fact directly result in less taxes being paid by me. > This bill would establish a corporate welfare tax on large employers equal to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wage workers. But it does not establish a means to reduce my tax burden whatsoever. I feel this is a valid criticism as the basis of the argument is that it's costing "the taxpayers." Well, I'm a taxpayer. I'm a shareholder in this organization, what's my get? I'm seeing large corps raising prices to offset the new tax, no new benefits for the underprivileged it's supposed to be helping, and no reduction in my personal costs. The net to me of that arrangement is less money in my pocket due to increased prices at the big companies. > Large companies, not taxpayers, should be required to pay for federal public assistance programs that their employees are eligible to receive. No, the system should be setup such that taxes are fair and equitable enough to cover the operating costs of the government. I'm seeing way too much of an "us" vs "them" in this arrangement, which I'm not surprised by given who is proposing it. > The Stop Bezos Act gives large employers a choice: pay workers a living wage or pay for the public assistance programs low-wage workers are forced to rely upon. We have no constitutional right to "living wage" and for the government to attempt to enforce a right that does not exist is a problem. I'll leave that argument at that.

dragonwriter 8y ago

As political grandstanding to rally the base around an issue and highlight a contrast between the sympathies of your faction and an opposing one to mobilize voters, it's not too bad. As substantive policy its a nightmare than would crush the people it purports to be aimed at helping, though, and the danger of grandstanding like this is it can get out of control and build the kind of support for the policy that makes it politically irresistible so that it gets adopted, at least in outline. I wonder how much of this is the Sanders camp being concerned that Warren had gotten way ahead of them with her recent moves (which are nearly as good as grandstanding and much better as substantive policy.) There's clearly a (mostly friendly, perhaps, but still intense) competition to be the standard bearer of the economic progressive faction of the Democratic Party going into the 2020 cycle. Electoral maneuvering aside, the simple solution to the policy problem this is aimed at is reducing the preference for capital income over labor income in the tax system, which makes hiring labor at any given wage level less expensive, and thereby more competitive with capital-intensive automation.

paulus_magnus2 8y ago

Wages are as low as employers can get away with. The problem would disappear if all workers had 10 employers to choose from. Lack of demand for labour is due to not enough market competition. We need to push corporations into a innovation race toward better products. Elon Musk is disrupting the auto industry, same thing needs to happen for every industry with entrenched rent-seeking players who drag their feet.

panarky 8y ago
> Wages are as low as employers can get away with Monopsony: a market structure in which a few buyers substantially control the market as the major purchasers of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers.
kakwa_ 8y ago
Are we talking about the same Elon Musk that creates companies with really bad workers conditions? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-workers-pay-price-elon-musk-failed-promises https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/tesla-wor... Disrupting a market as nothing to do with wages. Amazon did disrupt the retail industry, but the workers conditions and wages are bad. The "disrupt" aspect can also lead to a quasi monopoly situation (Facebook, Google), so much for market competition... Also competition in low margin markets tends to be a driver for lower wages, not higher wages. High demand in a market can drive higher wages, not competition. Tech workers have the luxury to choose from dozen employers because: 1) it takes years to train a CS engineer and it takes weeks if not months to get him up to speed in most companies (due to the immaturity of the industry IMHO), so you want to retain him. 2) there is a shortage of tech workers. 3) there is a bubble with a ton of money poured into it. 4) the tech industry is high margin, with a marginal cost for a unit (either a software copy or a new customer in a service) generally quite close to zero. Basically successful tech companies earn more money that they know want to do with. This is an exceptional situation. The real issue is that wage inequalities are growing quite significantly, and as a consequence, capital inequalities are becoming absolutely huge. It's a snowball effect. And with a lot of money, specific individuals/companies can heavily influence political and societal decisions/opinions (by owning newspapers, tv channels... by financing political parties/campaigns, by lobbying heavily the law makers). We are slowly but surely returning to a wealth distribution and monopoly situation as seen in the 19th century (Albeit with a far better material situation (food security, hygiene/health, education...) for nearly everyone on Earth due to the scientific and technical improvements over the past 2 centuries) This situation is a societal decision: do we accept that in a society with the global means and wealth for everybody to have food, a roof, medical care and education, they are still hardworking people on the brink of poverty? If the answer is no, it should be translated in political decision/laws (minimal wage or maybe universal income/social security/free education...).

legatus 8y ago

Why has this thread disappeared from the front page? By the way, the link results, for me, in "Sorry, a potential security risk was detected in your submitted request. The Webmaster has been alerted. "

anothergoogler 8y ago
It's the old HN shuffle: Flag controversial thread off the front page, mark unflagged as dupe of flagged/aged thread that can no longer surface.
- legatus 8y ago
  Does it result in the error for you too? Maybe it's related to that, otherwise it's really suspicious.
- dang 8y ago
  In this case it's the "old HN shuffle" of not having off-topic stories, as I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681
  - anothergoogler 8y ago
    I didn't mean to ascribe intent. I wrote more earlier in a reply attempt, but it was blocked ("you're posting too much" karma penalty message).
harryh 8y ago
It looks like dang (a HN employee) moderated it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681
- legatus 8y ago
  Oh I see, thanks for pointing it out! Hasn't it been introduced though? I'm not really a U.S. law expert, so I have trouble understanding. Isn't this the bill? (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/stop-bezos-act-2018?id=C2E88AC5-C629-4680-8F8D-9EE74F343560&download=1&inline=file https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/stop-bezos-act-2018?...)

kangnkodos 8y ago

Unintended consequence - workers who are sick or have large families and need government aid get fired. The goal is good. But this exact method is flawed.

thucydidesofusa 8y ago

Is anyone talking about how this incentivizes employers to select employees who are less likely to be on / enroll in public assistance? If a teenager and a single mom are going for the same job and the single mom uses welfare more intensely, the employer will have an incentive to select against the single mom because she uses welfare.

tzs 8y ago

I have no idea how accurate this analysis is, but it was interesting (found in discussion of this on /r/technology): https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/9a3sjh/old_man_yells_at_amazon_cloud/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/9a3sjh/old_ma... Anyone who knows economics here who can comment on whether that is a good argument or not?

anthroprose 8y ago

I'm not exactly sure how this could even be implemented. Take the sharing economy into account: Lyft/Uber InstaCart/Pizza Delivery Seasonal Workers such as Amazon Warehouse associates McDonalds/Walmart flex scheduling shifts "involuntary part time" Say an average person for this particular sharing economy example include two or three part-time jobs throughout the year. The person starts the year as a seasonal worker for amazon (christmas rush into new years) 160hours total, they then receive unemployment payments for a period of time. Later they become a part time employee of Walmart stocking late at night (400 hours). Finally they drive for both Uber and Lyft depending on customer volume to fill in the time they are not receiving shifts from Walmart (250hours). According to this bill, there is no logical way to split the federal benefits as defines (school lunch, housing subsidies, SNAP and medicaid. The unemployment is paid from employer's insurance. Is the total amount of tax for each employer simply divided by the number of hours employed? Seems like its being left up to the IRS in order to figure out the implementation.

RhysU 8y ago

Bezos, just to make a point, should stop doing business in and with entities from Vermont.