5 ms·

Who bears the blame for this though? If social programs are cut then voters freak. If the price of goods increase then voters freak. If taxes increase then vote

Who bears the blame for this though? If social programs are cut then voters freak. If the price of goods increase then voters freak. If taxes increase then voters freak. It seems that we get exactly what we vote for.

wcarron 2y ago
I think your question carries the seeds of the answer within it.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
We collectively bear the blame for allowing a system where government subsidizes shareholders and the wealthiest owners of these companies by not paying a living wage. In this case, these are Amazon government subsidies by way of the disadvantaged. "Why are consumers receiving low prices and shareholder profits more important than workers receiving a wage they can survive on?" seems to be a question no one wants to answer. As Galloway showed, we don't love our children, or even fellow humans in this context. We love line goes up more. At least we're making progress with the fertility rate going off the cliff, less humans to suffer under this regime in the future. https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destroying_young_people_s_future https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
- gruez 2y ago
  >In this case, these are Amazon government subsidies by way of the disadvantaged. "Why are consumers receiving low prices and shareholder profits more important than workers receiving a wage they can survive on?" seems to be a question no one wants to answer. If this is a "subsidy" to Amazon, what do you think would happen if they were pulled? Would amazon be forced to raise wages, or would the wages stay the same (because labor supply and demand is still the same) and the people starve instead?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    This is a a false dilemma. Force corporations to raise wages, continue to provide social safety nets (so basic needs are met), and if there is a gap, raise taxes in a progressive fashion. There is enough wealth to not configure the system in this manner; to continue to do so is a choice. It's just a big spreadsheet, you're arguing over a cell or two, I'm arguing over the function result and working backwards from there. Otherwise, we admit we're just fine with the current setup and that is who we are. We prefer the human suffering for magic numbers in a database. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45
    - Aunche 2y ago
      > continue to provide social safety nets Ok. So you admit that it's not a subsidy to businesses then and you're just using that word as an inflammatory talking point? > It's just a big spreadsheet, you're arguing over a cell or two, I'm arguing over the function result and working backwards from there. The problem is that if you're making wrong observations about these individual cells, you're going to write bad functions trying to wrangle them into the result you want. An example of this is the San Francisco blamed "greedy businesses" on their housing crisis, so they passed a ballot initiative that would raise hundreds of millions in taxes on businesses that they could spend housing. The problem is that housing problem was caused by NIMBYism all along, and despite spending billions of dollars on homelessness since then, their housing crisis only gotten worse and businesses are refusing return to SF even more than other cities. > Force corporations to raise wages Do you realize that this is exactly what Amazon wants? https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/economy/15-minimum-wage https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/economy/15-minimum-wage I think this goes to highlight why capital is winning over labor. Shareholders will do whatever it takes to make money without being blinded by ideology. Amazon investors realize that they would actually benefit from an America with higher labor costs because they are more automated their their competitors and are positioned to capture market share in such an environment. Meanwhile, most regular people are apathetic towards politics and those who care are too committed to their ideology to make good decisions.
mistermann 2y ago
> Who bears the blame for this though? Those who refuse to question the legitimacy of our so-called democracy, even more so those who engage in deceitful (even if well-intended!!) rhetoric or other actions[1] to present any such discussions from taking place. > It seems that we get exactly what we vote for. Consider what voting (or "democracy") is actually(!) composed of. Do we have any good reason to expect other than what we get? [1] which can come in many forms
wrs 2y ago
My impression is a lot of the people affected either don’t vote or are actively distracted so they’ll vote based on less relevant factors or pure theater.
newsclues 2y ago
Blame is less important than who is responsible for the solution!
SaintSeiya 2y ago
Bezos and execs, who earn billions of dollars in compensation on the shoulders of the working class like leeches. Reduce their compensation packages and redistribute it as wages in their baseline workers.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  Do the math instead of just seeing red at large numbers. Jassy earns about 29.2 M$. Lets round it to 30M$ for the sake of convenience and assume all 17 of the board members get paid the same. Amazon has about ~1.5M employees. Which means that if the entirety of their earnings were redistributed they would get a whopping ~$340 per person. An insult for a yearly bonus and certainly not enough to get people off of food stamps.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    What if you instead capped executive compensation to a ratio, say 1:25 pegged against the lowest wage earner in the company? e.g., you can only be compensated (meaning stock options inclusive) 25 times what your lowest paid employee is paid. Would this naturally raise the floor at companies as executives want to increase their own compensation? I remember an idea like this being floated 15 years ago or so and on the surface it seems sound, but the devil is always in the details.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      The biggest challenge is to prevent companies from just far more aggressively outsourcing. E.g. you get your CEO on contract from YourBrandCEOs'r'us, where he is paid 1x the salary of the lowest paid employee.
      - gregw2 2y ago
        Interesting thought, but if one is legislating a wage ratio, one can also outlaw outsourcing executive functions/positions above a certain level, no?
vaidhy 2y ago
If income taxes increase, then voters freak. We can increase the corporate tax, ban share buybacks, impose limits on the executive to non-executive pay, tax wealth etc, which will freak out the richest, but will benefit the society better.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Share buybacks were illegal stock manipulation for the majority of the USAs existence, until Reagan legalized them. They need to be made illegal again, they serve no purpose other than short term stock manipulation. If companies have excess cash, they should issue dividends (which was a huge part of the reason stocks were initially desirable). People would then buy stocks with good dividends (i.e. long term value, versus short term quick gain).

wcarron 2y ago

I think your question carries the seeds of the answer within it.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

We collectively bear the blame for allowing a system where government subsidizes shareholders and the wealthiest owners of these companies by not paying a living wage. In this case, these are Amazon government subsidies by way of the disadvantaged. "Why are consumers receiving low prices and shareholder profits more important than workers receiving a wage they can survive on?" seems to be a question no one wants to answer. As Galloway showed, we don't love our children, or even fellow humans in this context. We love line goes up more. At least we're making progress with the fertility rate going off the cliff, less humans to suffer under this regime in the future. https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destroying_young_people_s_future https://www.ted.com/talks/scott_galloway_how_the_us_is_destr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

gruez 2y ago
>In this case, these are Amazon government subsidies by way of the disadvantaged. "Why are consumers receiving low prices and shareholder profits more important than workers receiving a wage they can survive on?" seems to be a question no one wants to answer. If this is a "subsidy" to Amazon, what do you think would happen if they were pulled? Would amazon be forced to raise wages, or would the wages stay the same (because labor supply and demand is still the same) and the people starve instead?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  This is a a false dilemma. Force corporations to raise wages, continue to provide social safety nets (so basic needs are met), and if there is a gap, raise taxes in a progressive fashion. There is enough wealth to not configure the system in this manner; to continue to do so is a choice. It's just a big spreadsheet, you're arguing over a cell or two, I'm arguing over the function result and working backwards from there. Otherwise, we admit we're just fine with the current setup and that is who we are. We prefer the human suffering for magic numbers in a database. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45
  - Aunche 2y ago
    > continue to provide social safety nets Ok. So you admit that it's not a subsidy to businesses then and you're just using that word as an inflammatory talking point? > It's just a big spreadsheet, you're arguing over a cell or two, I'm arguing over the function result and working backwards from there. The problem is that if you're making wrong observations about these individual cells, you're going to write bad functions trying to wrangle them into the result you want. An example of this is the San Francisco blamed "greedy businesses" on their housing crisis, so they passed a ballot initiative that would raise hundreds of millions in taxes on businesses that they could spend housing. The problem is that housing problem was caused by NIMBYism all along, and despite spending billions of dollars on homelessness since then, their housing crisis only gotten worse and businesses are refusing return to SF even more than other cities. > Force corporations to raise wages Do you realize that this is exactly what Amazon wants? https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/economy/15-minimum-wage https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/economy/15-minimum-wage I think this goes to highlight why capital is winning over labor. Shareholders will do whatever it takes to make money without being blinded by ideology. Amazon investors realize that they would actually benefit from an America with higher labor costs because they are more automated their their competitors and are positioned to capture market share in such an environment. Meanwhile, most regular people are apathetic towards politics and those who care are too committed to their ideology to make good decisions.

mistermann 2y ago

> Who bears the blame for this though? Those who refuse to question the legitimacy of our so-called democracy, even more so those who engage in deceitful (even if well-intended!!) rhetoric or other actions[1] to present any such discussions from taking place. > It seems that we get exactly what we vote for. Consider what voting (or "democracy") is actually(!) composed of. Do we have any good reason to expect other than what we get? [1] which can come in many forms

wrs 2y ago

My impression is a lot of the people affected either don’t vote or are actively distracted so they’ll vote based on less relevant factors or pure theater.

newsclues 2y ago

Blame is less important than who is responsible for the solution!

SaintSeiya 2y ago

Bezos and execs, who earn billions of dollars in compensation on the shoulders of the working class like leeches. Reduce their compensation packages and redistribute it as wages in their baseline workers.

Nasrudith 2y ago
Do the math instead of just seeing red at large numbers. Jassy earns about 29.2 M$. Lets round it to 30M$ for the sake of convenience and assume all 17 of the board members get paid the same. Amazon has about ~1.5M employees. Which means that if the entirety of their earnings were redistributed they would get a whopping ~$340 per person. An insult for a yearly bonus and certainly not enough to get people off of food stamps.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  What if you instead capped executive compensation to a ratio, say 1:25 pegged against the lowest wage earner in the company? e.g., you can only be compensated (meaning stock options inclusive) 25 times what your lowest paid employee is paid. Would this naturally raise the floor at companies as executives want to increase their own compensation? I remember an idea like this being floated 15 years ago or so and on the surface it seems sound, but the devil is always in the details.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    The biggest challenge is to prevent companies from just far more aggressively outsourcing. E.g. you get your CEO on contract from YourBrandCEOs'r'us, where he is paid 1x the salary of the lowest paid employee.
    - gregw2 2y ago
      Interesting thought, but if one is legislating a wage ratio, one can also outlaw outsourcing executive functions/positions above a certain level, no?

vaidhy 2y ago

If income taxes increase, then voters freak. We can increase the corporate tax, ban share buybacks, impose limits on the executive to non-executive pay, tax wealth etc, which will freak out the richest, but will benefit the society better.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Share buybacks were illegal stock manipulation for the majority of the USAs existence, until Reagan legalized them. They need to be made illegal again, they serve no purpose other than short term stock manipulation. If companies have excess cash, they should issue dividends (which was a huge part of the reason stocks were initially desirable). People would then buy stocks with good dividends (i.e. long term value, versus short term quick gain).