s73v3r_

64 ms·

241.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
It is a labor subsidy, because Wal-Mart is not having to pay their workers a living wage because they can simply tell their workers to sign up for public assistance. I don't care about the nit-picky "Is it a direct labor subsidy o
242.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, I can't agree with that statement. Wal-Mart has lots of smart accountants; they know what the tax burden the average person making their wages would be. While I'm not at all opposed to changing how different categories of inco
243.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
No. While I'm completely in favor of UBI and stuff like that (although entirely against your call for deciding who can have children), shifting blame to society completely ignores that Amazon is the one who bears all the responsibility
244.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Why does everyone ignore the fact that employment at Amazon is voluntary?" Because it absolutely does not matter. "then the employee should simply stop working there, because Amazon isn't holding up their end of the bar
245.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"If that's the case then I fail to see how a particular employer is responsible for that problem." I fail to see how they're not. Wal-Mart is entirely, 10,000% responsible for how much they pay their workers. "I mea
246.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
No. They are benefitting because they are having their labor subsidized by taxpayers because they don't pay enough. Again, pretending the reason people are upset is because they're selling food, and not because Wal-Mart is requiri
247.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, not at all. It's that, if you are employing someone full time, those people should not need public assistance. If they do, then taxpayers are subsidizing your labor costs. And for a company as big and as rich as Amazon or Wal-Mart,
248.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
I'm far less concerned about high school kids than I am about people needing these jobs to survive.
249.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
You're making a lot of assumptions, mainly that people have perfect mobility about where they work, and perfect information about what they're getting into.
250.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
It is entirely the business's fault that they are not paying their workers enough to live on.
251.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
Nobody is upset that Wal-Mart sells food to SNAP beneficiaries. What people are upset over is the fact that so many of Wal-Mart's employees need to go on public assistance because the company refuses to pay them enough to live on. Tryi
252.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"If everyone is working more, more value is being created in total." That's not necessarily true, and more importantly, even if it is, most of that value is not going to the people doing the actual work.
253.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
There's a lag in between those things where both clauses can definitely be true.
254.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"1) How am I supposed ro go to the beach with two kids, stuff for picnic and surfboards on a bike or even on a bus?!!" Do you honestly do this every day? No? Then don't bring that up. Use a car when it makes sense, and don&#x
255.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
I think that's an incredibly defeatist attitude to take, and the perfect excuse to not improve anything or try to learn from what others have done.
256.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
But why would I want silver coins in such a situation? I can't eat them, and I can't use them for any actual purpose.
257.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
Sorry, but that is entirely captialism. You don't get to take core aspects of the system and say it's not really part of the system.
258.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
Why would anyone be wanting silver coins for that bread?
259.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"What if elements of the same collection need to have different structure?" The answer is, they usually don't.
260.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Which shitty business practice? Selling food to poor people to make them less hungry?" No one talked about that but you. You know that is not what we're talking about; we're talking about the shitty wages WalMart pays,
261.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
Because he's contributed much to the problem, especially with the wages he's paid to his warehouse employees. We'll see if he's actually able to contribute to the solution.
262.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
I'd say that's part of the realization phase.
263.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
I disagree. This would be the US Government telling a shitty company that they no longer want to subsidize their shitty business practices with taxpayer dollars anymore.
264.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
And I disagree. When you have one of the largest, most profitable companies giving their employees application forms for public assistance, they are the ones who are wrong, and they absolutely should be singled out and shamed for it.
265.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"I gain nothing by watching ads." You get the site getting revenue, which allows it to continue existing and creating the content you enjoy.
266.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
I think most people would believe that, in most cases, the amount of liability they receive is disproportionate to the amount of harm they cause. And as more and more companies seek to ban class actions and require binding arbitration, sayi
267.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
And I also don't care where a person is politically; the private sector's obligation is to not leave their employees on public assistance. The government, and by extension you and I are not there to subsidize Wal-Mart. "I&#x2
268.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
"I'm not sure why people blame Wal-Mart if their employees take food stamps" Because that means that Wal-Mart is not paying their employees enough, which means that you and I have to subsidize them. I don't know about yo
269.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
If the states were supposed to be doing that, then they've already failed miserably at their duty. As for what I stand to gain, I'd say it's an end to the race to the bottom that I pointed out in my initial comment. No more w
270.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
Consumers are choosing to go to those websites. Publishers are not choosing to serve their content through Brave.

More ›