9 ms·

If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will increase minimum wage. But they don't. So it does seem that the majorit

by dkural 8y ago

If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will increase minimum wage. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage. If Americans would like people to have proper access to healthcare, they would not make it dependent on having a job and make it a universal right funded by the government, but they don't. I actually am an advocate for higher wages for all, and more government subsidy of healthcare, education, and access to daycare / pre-school; but we can't leave achieving these to whims of each business or the largesse of billionaires. Americans recently elected a president who enacted tax cuts that benefit Jeff Bezos and the wealthier segment of society, at the expense of government programs that could benefit the poor, the homeless, and the children in need of care. Also, from a purely business viewpoint: Walmart employs drastically more customer-facing retail employees compared to Amazon thus (1) their morale and behavior has a direct impact on the immediate customer experience (2) the training costs (hence the cost of replacement) is higher due to the need to train soft-skills and customer-facing skills etc. Amazon does pay hard-to-replace employees way above minimum wage, including software engineering, marketing jobs, automation, managers, etc.

skh 8y ago
Race, abortion, and an irrational fear of taxation are enough to keep people voting against their self interests. These are important factors to consider when trying to understand voting patterns in the U.S.
- phil21 8y ago
  > irrational fear of taxation Curious when it becomes rational? Literally every federal income tax bracket is more than the taxes on "tea" before the revolutionary war. Most of us making decent money in high-cost world city are paying 50% or damn near close to it in taxes. What is left to tax? If you start taking much more from me I simply quit and move to the third world where I can retire today with my current savings. This whole meme of "irrational fear of taxation" is ridiculous. Those that make money pay 50% or so in taxes, and we aren't seeing a whole lot of return for that money. I'd pay 7% more if I moved to the Netherlands today, and get a whole lot more than 7% in additional value.
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    What is left to tax are the rich who pay nowhere near what you do. They are also why you are both dissatisfied with your post-tax income, and, to a lesser extent, underwhelmed by what it buys for the government.
    - brain5ide 8y ago
      There's the old adage: the liberals don't care for the poor. They just hate the rich. The point is that, if a tax system relies on some, even arbitrary structure, there will always be a way for a rich person to pay less by restructuring, and the cost of restructuring will always be worth it the richer you are. The main problem of this tax the rich fuckery is that the supposed rules usually bleed onto the middle class in 10 to 20 years due to trying to make the ends meet. Also, the unsolicited spending, of course, but that's another story.
      - _nalply 8y ago
        Perhaps we should tax something very human that nobody can escape? Economy can be displayed as flows of money, labor and goods. We should look hard at these flows and think where even the rich can't evade by restructuring. I don't have a pre-made solution, only ideas. The crucial idea is that one rich person is a person after all. What do people do? They consume, give money to others and export funds. Catch them when they do that. They can't avoid eating and sleeping. Therefore switching the focus of taxation onto things nobody can avoid would be something society needs to contemplate and perhaps tackle. A completely novel way would be something I call affluence source tax. It is similar to a value added tax, however it is levied on everything a rich person does: buying stuff, paying for labor and rent, bartering, and especially for exporting funds! Forget taxing legal entities because they are always being restructured to minimise taxing. Just look at the people themselves, not the legal entities. Probably this wouldn't be the granddaddy of all taxing solutions, and most surely the rich will be successful in stopping this, but at least nobody can stop me thinking about this problem.
        8y ago
- purplezooey 8y ago
  pretty much
scarface74 8y ago
If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will increase minimum wage. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage. Why put the onus on private business to implement above market wages and pay people more than the free market allows? This causes all sorts of unintended consequences. There is a simple answer that doesn’t distort the private market - expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Instead of giving it out once per year, give it out every month to people who qualify. The EITC has traditionally been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations. I don’t know how it would fare in today’s political climate.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  I might be for that, as long as any welfare given to a company's employees is billed to the company. As it is now, some companies pay below what people need to survive, and force their employees to collect welfare to make up for the difference... effectively forcing tax payers to subsidize their business. Without that adjustment, (your idea with) the EITC distorts markets.. by reducing the pressure employees and job seekers place on a company to pay adequate wages. In a market without EITC/welfare, working a job that paid too little to survive would result in your employees leaving, or at least unionizing/striking. No one would work for you knowing they wouldn't obtain enough money to pay their bills.
  - benlorenzetti 8y ago
    > I might be for that, as long as any welfare given to a company's employees is billed to the company. Sounds like a convoluted way of having a job and getting paid for it.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It would still distort the market just as badly. People making minimum wage have easily replaceable skills for the most part. If they go on strike, the company can just hire other people who are willing to do the job.
    - 8y ago
rgbrenner 8y ago
So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage. You can't just randomly pick an issue, see it hasn't been done, and conclude no one cares about it. Voting isn't that simple. And getting things done within the government isn't that simple. But in any case, let's say you're right... there's nothing wrong with pressuring individual companies. Pressure, whether applied socially, economically (through boycotts), or legally are all valid ways of achieving a goal. Some of those may be more effective than others, but people should use whatever tools they have available.
- dkural 8y ago
  I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with pressuring individual companies. Totally agreed voting isn't simple! Also I tried to word my sentence carefully: I didn't claim no one cares; or that even the majority didn't care; just that they didn't "care enough" i.e. prioritize this to influence their vote over other issues.
benlorenzetti 8y ago
If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will decrease inflation. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to decrease inflation. If Americans would like people to have proper access to healthcare, they would not make it dependent on having a job and make it a universal benefit funded by the government, but they don't. I actually am an advocate for lower prices for all goods, and some government programs for healthcare, education, and access to daycare / pre-school;...etc.
r00fus 8y ago
Your dichotomy is false. There is no either/or, concerned citizens should desire all of the above solutions.
sieabahlpark 8y ago
Or you could not support the company because of their practices. Literally, don't support Amazon and get as many people to not support it.

by dkural 8y ago

skh 8y ago

Race, abortion, and an irrational fear of taxation are enough to keep people voting against their self interests. These are important factors to consider when trying to understand voting patterns in the U.S.

phil21 8y ago
> irrational fear of taxation Curious when it becomes rational? Literally every federal income tax bracket is more than the taxes on "tea" before the revolutionary war. Most of us making decent money in high-cost world city are paying 50% or damn near close to it in taxes. What is left to tax? If you start taking much more from me I simply quit and move to the third world where I can retire today with my current savings. This whole meme of "irrational fear of taxation" is ridiculous. Those that make money pay 50% or so in taxes, and we aren't seeing a whole lot of return for that money. I'd pay 7% more if I moved to the Netherlands today, and get a whole lot more than 7% in additional value.
- WalterSear 8y ago
  What is left to tax are the rich who pay nowhere near what you do. They are also why you are both dissatisfied with your post-tax income, and, to a lesser extent, underwhelmed by what it buys for the government.
  - brain5ide 8y ago
    There's the old adage: the liberals don't care for the poor. They just hate the rich. The point is that, if a tax system relies on some, even arbitrary structure, there will always be a way for a rich person to pay less by restructuring, and the cost of restructuring will always be worth it the richer you are. The main problem of this tax the rich fuckery is that the supposed rules usually bleed onto the middle class in 10 to 20 years due to trying to make the ends meet. Also, the unsolicited spending, of course, but that's another story.
    - _nalply 8y ago
      Perhaps we should tax something very human that nobody can escape? Economy can be displayed as flows of money, labor and goods. We should look hard at these flows and think where even the rich can't evade by restructuring. I don't have a pre-made solution, only ideas. The crucial idea is that one rich person is a person after all. What do people do? They consume, give money to others and export funds. Catch them when they do that. They can't avoid eating and sleeping. Therefore switching the focus of taxation onto things nobody can avoid would be something society needs to contemplate and perhaps tackle. A completely novel way would be something I call affluence source tax. It is similar to a value added tax, however it is levied on everything a rich person does: buying stuff, paying for labor and rent, bartering, and especially for exporting funds! Forget taxing legal entities because they are always being restructured to minimise taxing. Just look at the people themselves, not the legal entities. Probably this wouldn't be the granddaddy of all taxing solutions, and most surely the rich will be successful in stopping this, but at least nobody can stop me thinking about this problem.
      - 8y ago
purplezooey 8y ago
pretty much

scarface74 8y ago

If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will increase minimum wage. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage. Why put the onus on private business to implement above market wages and pay people more than the free market allows? This causes all sorts of unintended consequences. There is a simple answer that doesn’t distort the private market - expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Instead of giving it out once per year, give it out every month to people who qualify. The EITC has traditionally been supported by Republican and Democratic administrations. I don’t know how it would fare in today’s political climate.

rgbrenner 8y ago
I might be for that, as long as any welfare given to a company's employees is billed to the company. As it is now, some companies pay below what people need to survive, and force their employees to collect welfare to make up for the difference... effectively forcing tax payers to subsidize their business. Without that adjustment, (your idea with) the EITC distorts markets.. by reducing the pressure employees and job seekers place on a company to pay adequate wages. In a market without EITC/welfare, working a job that paid too little to survive would result in your employees leaving, or at least unionizing/striking. No one would work for you knowing they wouldn't obtain enough money to pay their bills.
- benlorenzetti 8y ago
  > I might be for that, as long as any welfare given to a company's employees is billed to the company. Sounds like a convoluted way of having a job and getting paid for it.
- scarface74 8y ago
  It would still distort the market just as badly. People making minimum wage have easily replaceable skills for the most part. If they go on strike, the company can just hire other people who are willing to do the job.
  - 8y ago

rgbrenner 8y ago

So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage. You can't just randomly pick an issue, see it hasn't been done, and conclude no one cares about it. Voting isn't that simple. And getting things done within the government isn't that simple. But in any case, let's say you're right... there's nothing wrong with pressuring individual companies. Pressure, whether applied socially, economically (through boycotts), or legally are all valid ways of achieving a goal. Some of those may be more effective than others, but people should use whatever tools they have available.

dkural 8y ago
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with pressuring individual companies. Totally agreed voting isn't simple! Also I tried to word my sentence carefully: I didn't claim no one cares; or that even the majority didn't care; just that they didn't "care enough" i.e. prioritize this to influence their vote over other issues.

benlorenzetti 8y ago

If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will decrease inflation. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to decrease inflation. If Americans would like people to have proper access to healthcare, they would not make it dependent on having a job and make it a universal benefit funded by the government, but they don't. I actually am an advocate for lower prices for all goods, and some government programs for healthcare, education, and access to daycare / pre-school;...etc.

r00fus 8y ago

Your dichotomy is false. There is no either/or, concerned citizens should desire all of the above solutions.

sieabahlpark 8y ago

Or you could not support the company because of their practices. Literally, don't support Amazon and get as many people to not support it.