5 ms·

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)?
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    About 1/2 of states have minimum wages above the federal level. So yes state level changes get a lot of attention, but there's also lots of people impacted by the federal level.
0x8BADF00D 8y ago
It’s not efficient at all. In fact it’s quite the opposite. Minimum wage will reduce overall employment, because the price of labor increases.
- TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
  Doesn't BEZOS increase the price of labor for Amazon, reducing the number of employees they employ? IMO, this looks similar to a minimum wage law for large companies.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  That's a very common assertion, and fairly well supported by common economic models; but the actual observed effect is quite small.
- user3359 8y ago
  This is my thought process as well. Amazon may not be able to immediately automate it's workforce, but can ramp up investment for fewer kmployees with higher output over time. McDonalds on the other hand, already has kiosks installed everywhere and simply has to decide orders can't be taken at the till anymore. There goes 50% of customer facing staff. And here comes more of the population relying on government subsidies. Basic income is still a more viable alternative, but I have low hopes of this being taken seriously for another 10-20 years.
- sesutton 8y ago
  Efficient in terms of administration. There's already a minimum wage so simply increasing it shouldn't require a lot of new bureaucracy like this would and achieve the same effect.
Falling3 8y ago
Off the top of my head, this would better deal with situational differences between workers such as someone with no dependents versus someone with 5. It's a novel idea and doesn't have the baggage of minimum wage increases, nor would it need to be continually updated to deal with inflation.
burkaman 8y ago
It's not efficient if it doesn't pass. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/15
mtgx 8y ago
If there's anyone who's been trying to do that in the past few years, it's Bernie Sanders. That's where the "$15 minimum wage" idea came from. But even most Democrats aren't on board, let alone Republicans. I'm guessing this bill is made so that it appeals to Trump, too, who's been attacking Bezos lately. Fingers crossed it passes. Amazon has benefited from low taxes, which has catapulted it into a monopoly in several markets. Monopolies are bad for consumers, competition, and employees. The low taxes is part of the reasons why it's been able to invest more in the company, subsidize Kindle ebooks for years (Apple has called it a price dumping tactic), it enabled it to offer free shipping with a relatively low subscription, and of course cheaper products in general compared to offline retailers.
- java-man 8y ago
  but good for the shareholders! /s
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If there's anyone who's been trying to do that in the past few years, it's Bernie Sanders. That's where the "$15 minimum wage" idea came from. No, it's not; Sanders was the first major national politician to jump on the grassroots Fight for $15 movement, but he didn't start it. (Heck, Black Lives Matter was involved before Sanders, but they didn't start it, either.)
decacorn 8y ago
Republicans REFUSE to do that. Has nothing to do with naming. All about lack of backbones in our Congress.

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)?
- maxerickson 8y ago
  About 1/2 of states have minimum wages above the federal level. So yes state level changes get a lot of attention, but there's also lots of people impacted by the federal level.

0x8BADF00D 8y ago

It’s not efficient at all. In fact it’s quite the opposite. Minimum wage will reduce overall employment, because the price of labor increases.

TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
Doesn't BEZOS increase the price of labor for Amazon, reducing the number of employees they employ? IMO, this looks similar to a minimum wage law for large companies.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
That's a very common assertion, and fairly well supported by common economic models; but the actual observed effect is quite small.
user3359 8y ago
This is my thought process as well. Amazon may not be able to immediately automate it's workforce, but can ramp up investment for fewer kmployees with higher output over time. McDonalds on the other hand, already has kiosks installed everywhere and simply has to decide orders can't be taken at the till anymore. There goes 50% of customer facing staff. And here comes more of the population relying on government subsidies. Basic income is still a more viable alternative, but I have low hopes of this being taken seriously for another 10-20 years.
sesutton 8y ago
Efficient in terms of administration. There's already a minimum wage so simply increasing it shouldn't require a lot of new bureaucracy like this would and achieve the same effect.

Falling3 8y ago

Off the top of my head, this would better deal with situational differences between workers such as someone with no dependents versus someone with 5. It's a novel idea and doesn't have the baggage of minimum wage increases, nor would it need to be continually updated to deal with inflation.

burkaman 8y ago

It's not efficient if it doesn't pass. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/15 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/15

mtgx 8y ago

If there's anyone who's been trying to do that in the past few years, it's Bernie Sanders. That's where the "$15 minimum wage" idea came from. But even most Democrats aren't on board, let alone Republicans. I'm guessing this bill is made so that it appeals to Trump, too, who's been attacking Bezos lately. Fingers crossed it passes. Amazon has benefited from low taxes, which has catapulted it into a monopoly in several markets. Monopolies are bad for consumers, competition, and employees. The low taxes is part of the reasons why it's been able to invest more in the company, subsidize Kindle ebooks for years (Apple has called it a price dumping tactic), it enabled it to offer free shipping with a relatively low subscription, and of course cheaper products in general compared to offline retailers.

java-man 8y ago
but good for the shareholders! /s
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If there's anyone who's been trying to do that in the past few years, it's Bernie Sanders. That's where the "$15 minimum wage" idea came from. No, it's not; Sanders was the first major national politician to jump on the grassroots Fight for $15 movement, but he didn't start it. (Heck, Black Lives Matter was involved before Sanders, but they didn't start it, either.)

decacorn 8y ago

Republicans REFUSE to do that. Has nothing to do with naming. All about lack of backbones in our Congress.