4 ms·

> You know what else comes out of the pocket of the consumer? Paying for government assistance for people employed full time by a company. I think you mean "ta

> You know what else comes out of the pocket of the consumer? Paying for government assistance for people employed full time by a company. I think you mean "taxpayer" > In other words, Amazon is costing you, the taxpayer, money by not paying their workers a living wage. Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs. > living wage. what constitutes a "living wage" is dependent on the cost of consumer goods which is in turn dependent on the cost of labor. You're not going to escape the fact that some people's labor isn't worth enough to earn them the standard of living that you or they would prefer by wishful thinking or statutory fiat. You can, however, limit their options and distort the market in a vicious circle of economically ignorant mandates.

Brian_K_White 6y ago
"Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs." That would be better. I would MUCH rather pay for them to be in school instead of just paying part of Bezos' and other Amazon investors operating costs. Shit I wish I could have a buch of employees and get someone else to pay for them. What a great idea! Why doesn't everyone do that? I mean except for the employees of course. They can't have companies staffed by employees they don't pay for. Duh. Only Amazon and Walmart can have that, obvs. I mean who would be their employees? You? Not me. I guess we need something like a seperate class or group of people who have to be the underpaid employees so that the rest of us can enjoy being the employers without paying for it. We used to have that back in the good old days... It's almost like this is a stupid argument that there is no way to excuse, and no amount of indirect smoke & mirrors or denial gets around that, and anyone even trying deserves to be among the first people rounded up for the new press gangs they think are so fair a great.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > "Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs." That would be better. Not for them or for the economy at large. It would be good for people who own capital goods, as they would spend their assistance checks on consumer goods without competing to provide them. The profit would accrue to the few who hold capital and those capitalists would have an enormous supply of reserve labor available, driving down the marginal cost of labor (so the people who did have jobs would have less bargaining power). > I would MUCH rather pay for them to be in school instead of just paying part of Bezos' and other Amazon investors operating costs. Thats interesting, how many people can you currently afford to feed, house, and pay tuition for? > It's almost like this is a stupid argument that there is no way to excuse, and no amount of indirect smoke & mirrors or denial gets around that, and anyone even trying deserves to be among the first people rounded up for the new press gangs they think are so fair a great. It may seem that way to you. Actually what we have is a bunch of people who are ignorant of economics but still have opinions about how the economy should be run, and a class of politicians who appeal to their ignorance by selling them fairy tales that ignore scarcity and appeal to wishful thinking.

Brian_K_White 6y ago

"Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs." That would be better. I would MUCH rather pay for them to be in school instead of just paying part of Bezos' and other Amazon investors operating costs. Shit I wish I could have a buch of employees and get someone else to pay for them. What a great idea! Why doesn't everyone do that? I mean except for the employees of course. They can't have companies staffed by employees they don't pay for. Duh. Only Amazon and Walmart can have that, obvs. I mean who would be their employees? You? Not me. I guess we need something like a seperate class or group of people who have to be the underpaid employees so that the rest of us can enjoy being the employers without paying for it. We used to have that back in the good old days... It's almost like this is a stupid argument that there is no way to excuse, and no amount of indirect smoke & mirrors or denial gets around that, and anyone even trying deserves to be among the first people rounded up for the new press gangs they think are so fair a great.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> "Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs." That would be better. Not for them or for the economy at large. It would be good for people who own capital goods, as they would spend their assistance checks on consumer goods without competing to provide them. The profit would accrue to the few who hold capital and those capitalists would have an enormous supply of reserve labor available, driving down the marginal cost of labor (so the people who did have jobs would have less bargaining power). > I would MUCH rather pay for them to be in school instead of just paying part of Bezos' and other Amazon investors operating costs. Thats interesting, how many people can you currently afford to feed, house, and pay tuition for? > It's almost like this is a stupid argument that there is no way to excuse, and no amount of indirect smoke & mirrors or denial gets around that, and anyone even trying deserves to be among the first people rounded up for the new press gangs they think are so fair a great. It may seem that way to you. Actually what we have is a bunch of people who are ignorant of economics but still have opinions about how the economy should be run, and a class of politicians who appeal to their ignorance by selling them fairy tales that ignore scarcity and appeal to wishful thinking.