[Update]Amazon institutes $15 minimum wage for all US employees AND eliminates monthly bonuses and Stock Grants

[Jumper118]

6 hours ago, Podo said:

Agreed, but it is the workers' responsibility to value their time according to the market.  A company is only allowed to pay what the workforce is willing to take, if the workforce is willing to take $5/hr the company will pay $5/hr.

 

I believe in the original ideals of Unions as they are to help the worker, but history has shown unions have destroyed competitive industries and allowed for corruption.  The US Car manufacturers at the last recession is a prime example.  Michigan Unionized autoworkers inflated the payroll costs enormously inflating the cost of domestic vehicles.  So when Asian and European Car companies opened Non-Union plants to sell cars domestically circumnavigating the stupid import tariffs of automobiles, the importers were now able to offer competitive cars which showed how inflated the domestic car market was.   And the Domestic Auto Manufacturers didn't have the flexibility due to the strangle hold the Unions had on them which finally came to a head when Oil prices skyrocketed and the recession hit.  It took the Government (stupidly) to bail out the auto companies to "save the jobs."  It sounds heartless to say thousands of people should lose their jobs but if their jobs are secured by corrupt corporate/governmental dealing then I think the burnt hands teaches best.

 

People are too engrossed in their reality-TV, let's plays, streamers, pro sports, etc. to pay attention to the things which ACTUALLY affect their lives until it is too late and then get upset because they did anything until the problem is at a head.

spot on. 

[Amazonsucks]

You know what would help people economically even more than bs minimum wage laws? If companies like amazon that are on taxpayer funded corporate welfare, whose workers are often on food stamps, with a CEO whose the richest man in the world were replaced with something better.

 

Instead, its the other way around, where a shitbag company like amazon has replaced everything good. Its taken the role of walmart for: going into a community, wrecking local business with the help of taxpayer funding, then making the same people who got screwed over so dependent on them that, not only is it the only place they can afford to shop but a lot of them end up working there and hating it.

 

People manufacture the weapons for their own destruction every time they shop at a place like amazon or buy shit from countries that theyll likely be at war with soon like china.

[Razor Blade]

4 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Wow, that sounds almost exactly, literally what I said, no doubt about it, I mean, who could possibly interpret anything else from my words, right? Thank god we have you to explain it even to the extremely few that may, surprisingly, not see it by themselves.

 

Just give me a call when you finish debating him:

That took literally no effort to get under your skin. I was hoping for a peaceful intelligent debate but all I got was sarcasm and a childish insult.

 

14 hours ago, Deli said:

Wages isn't the only expenses of businesses. Depends on what kind of busness. Labour costs isn't always the biggest expense for a business. Like for transportation, fuels is the biggest one.

 

What happens if petroleum price goes up to $100+ like a decade ago? The cost for transport, the energy bills will go up, the prices of products from distribution will go up. How do you deal with that? If minimum wage increases is enough to close a business. Other factors like increase of energy prices, rent and the upcoming increase of interest rate will definitely kill the business. I mean, if a business is surviving on such thin margin that can't handle a increase of minimum wage. It's such a bad business model. It'll go out of business very soon one way or another.

True other costs go up, businesses have to adapt. That is why I said things have to balance.

[Tristerin]

People need to use their Purchasing Power to show their dislike for issues like this...virtue signaling over forums isn't going to do a single thing.  Its easy to stop Bezos.  Stop buying from Amazon. 

 

I hate Bezos.  I use my Purchasing Power to show it.

 

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

People need to use their Purchasing Power to show their dislike for issues like this...virtue signaling over forums isn't going to do a single thing.  Its easy to stop Bezos.  Stop buying from Amazon. 

 

I hate Bezos.  I use my Purchasing Power to show it.

 

Thing is most won’t.

[PocketNerd]

7 hours ago, Podo said:

Agreed, but it is the workers' responsibility to value their time according to the market.  A company is only allowed to pay what the workforce is willing to take, if the workforce is willing to take $5/hr the company will pay $5/hr.

That would be great if the workforce and the company were negotiating on an equal playground, but they aren't.

Considering that you need money to live. No worker in their right mind would fight for something greater than that $5/hr if it meant that the company would refuse them and then they get $0/hr. Especially when the company knows that someone else would gladly work for that $5/hr instead, even if it wasn't in their best interest.

Companies/Corporations/Employers have far more power in this exchange than the worker does. Unions certainly help, but as you allude to, they're just as prone to corruption as anything else.

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Thing is most won’t.

So what youre saying is, most people are unthinking and dont give a shit about the consequences of their actions?

[Razor Blade]

33 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

That would be great if the workforce and the company were negotiating on an equal playground, but they aren't.

Considering that you need money to live. No worker in their right mind would fight for something greater than that $5/hr if it meant that the company would refuse them and then they get $0/hr. Especially when the company knows that someone else would gladly work for that $5/hr instead, even if it wasn't in their best interest.

Companies/Corporations/Employers have far more power in this exchange than the worker does. Unions certainly help, but as you allude to, they're just as prone to corruption as anything else.

That entirely depends on what kind of work you're talking about. If you have skills and experience companies are looking for, it makes you way more marketable. I'm not talking about just going to college and getting a degree...there is a real shortage of skilled labor in America...

 

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/dirty-jobs-mike-rowe-cte-skilled-trades.aspx

 

But if all people care about is getting a part time job down at the local supermarket or fast food restaurant then of course they're going to be at a major disadvantage.

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

You know what would help people economically even more than bs minimum wage laws? If companies like amazon that are on taxpayer funded corporate welfare, whose workers are often on food stamps, with a CEO whose the richest man in the world were replaced with something better.

 

Instead, its the other way around, where a shitbag company like amazon has replaced everything good. Its taken the role of walmart for: going into a community, wrecking local business with the help of taxpayer funding, then making the same people who got screwed over so dependent on them that, not only is it the only place they can afford to shop but a lot of them end up working there and hating it.

 

People manufacture the weapons for their own destruction every time they shop at a place like amazon or buy shit from countries that theyll likely be at war with soon like china.

Good old Bernie has been talking about this too. Forcing companies who have workers on gov benefits to pay for those benefits. For example If I got $300 a month for food stamps then they would have to bear that cost. For each employee who got the benefits. 

[Taf the Ghost]

10 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Good old Bernie has been talking about this too. Forcing companies who have workers on gov benefits to pay for those benefits. For example If I got $300 a month for food stamps then they would have to bear that cost. For each employee who got the benefits. 

While I agree in principle, in a policy implementation situation, it'd likely just lead to those with benefits (either personally or in the family) not getting hired. It's a nice talking point, but laws don't change the productivity of a worker. Making a worker more costly than a similar alternative will simply shift the hiring practices.

[leadeater]

22 hours ago, Razor Blade said:

They aren't a charity, they're a company. They're in the business of making money.

That last bit I actually really hate, few businesses are in the business of making money and even those that are is not their sole function. The perpetuation of businesses are to make money is what I view as a major contributor to a lot of problems.

 

Most businesses exist to offer a service or product, making a profit may or may not even be a requirement at all. Generally a business wants to make an operating profit so they can use that to invest in the growth of the company.

 

Even investment firms who's primary business goal is to make money uses their funds to invest in other businesses or ventures which in turn help those businesses grow or exist.

 

Businesses are not a charity, unless they actually are i.e Non-profit/NGO, but they aren't 'in the business of making money'. That's part of the mind set that makes minimum wage laws need to exist, race to lowest viable product includes employee wages and it's not a race we should even have.

 

Granted there are a slew of issues that contribute to employment and wage issues and the above may not even be a significant factor, or maybe it is I don't know, but if we stop the whole businesses are to make money mantra we could at least tick off one issue as fixed, even if a small one, but I suspect even this is just too hard to achieve.

[Donut417]

12 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

While I agree in principle, in a policy implementation situation, it'd likely just lead to those with benefits (either personally or in the family) not getting hired. It's a nice talking point, but laws don't change the productivity of a worker. Making a worker more costly than a similar alternative will simply shift the hiring practices.

How will the company know they got benefits before they get hired? On top of you just revise the employment laws to make it so they cant discriminate. Plus in some ways you cant be that kind of choosy with your workers. What is Amazon going to do, shut shop in areas that have a large amount of people on government assistance? In some areas Amazon is kinda stuck. For example, the warehouses in Michigan. We have two major airports, Detroit Metro and Willow Run and we have direct access to Canada. Lots of people here in Michgian are on goverment aid. And considering that most of the warehouses are located in Metro Detroit where a lot of the poorer people live, they dont have a choice. 

[Razor Blade]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That last bit I actually really hate, few businesses are in the business of making money and even those that are is not their sole function. The perpetuation of businesses are to make money is what I view as a major contributor to a lot of problems.

 

Most businesses exist to offer a service or product, making a profit may or may not even be a requirement at all. Generally a business wants to make an operating profit so they can use that to invest in the growth of the company.

 

Even investment firms who's primary business goal is to make money uses their funds to invest in other businesses or ventures which in turn help those businesses grow or exist.

 

Businesses are not a charity, unless they actually are i.e Non-profit/NGO, but they aren't 'in the business of making money'. That's part of the mind set that makes minimum wage laws need to exist, race to lowest viable product includes employee wages and it's not a race we should even have.

 

Granted there are a slew of issues that contribute to employment and wage issues and the above may not even be a significant factor, or maybe it is I don't know, but if we stop the whole businesses are to make money mantra we could at least tick of one issue as fixed, even if a small one, but I suspect even this is just too hard to achieve.

There is nothing wrong with a business making money... There is nothing wrong with someone who has wealth if they built it over the course of 24 years... Jeff Bezos has done a lot of charity...donating more money than I could ever even imagine donating...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-richest-person-modern-history-spends-on-charity-2018-7

 

Donating literally Billions of dollars just isn't enough for some people. When you mention things like this, there are those that say he is only doing it for tax reasons. There is just no debating with people that have a highly toxic view of money.

[Amazonsucks]

16 minutes ago, Razor Blade said:

There is nothing wrong with a business making money... There is nothing wrong with someone who has wealth if they built it over the course of 24 years... Jeff Bezos has done a lot of charity...donating more money than I could ever even imagine donating...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-richest-person-modern-history-spends-on-charity-2018-7

 

Donating literally Billions of dollars just isn't enough for some people. When you mention things like this, there are those that say he is only doing it for tax reasons. There is just no debating with people that have a highly toxic view of money.

Donating billions of ill gotten, tax subsidized money to give apologists like you a talking point is not enough in the context of the economic damage that Bezos has done. 

 

I think this is the only rational view of money:

 

"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?" Quore from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

 

Bezos is scum and his business model is destructive, and government subsidized. It is the antithesis of capitalism.

 

He makes money off of peoples' irrationality and carelessness for their own future, and the people who shop at places like Amazon and Walmart buy the shoddiest of goods from a government subsidized sleazy merchant.

 

I dont expect Bezos to become ethical. I honestly dont expect that consumers will get a clue and start shopping at places that dont ruin economy any time soon either. I can only hope that more people stop shopping at shitter stores like Amazon and Walmart and start buying better things instead of a bunch of shit made in countries with nukes pointed at us.

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Razor Blade said:

There is nothing wrong with a business making money... There is nothing wrong with someone who has wealth if they built it over the course of 24 years... Jeff Bezos has done a lot of charity...donating more money than I could ever even imagine donating...

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-richest-person-modern-history-spends-on-charity-2018-7

 

Donating literally Billions of dollars just isn't enough for some people. When you mention things like this, there are those that say he is only doing it for tax reasons. There is just no debating with people that have a highly toxic view of money.

I didn't say it's wrong to make money, nor that it's wrong to be wealthy, but I do say it is not correct that companies exist to make money. I don't care how much money a business donates, they shouldn't need to in the first place or should be doing it out of true good will not a critical need to because of systemic issues like wealth inequity driven by the utter desire to make as much money as possible.

 

People or companies with the ability to donate billions of dollars is to me an indicator of an issue existing, not good will or something to champion.

[Razor Blade]

4 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Donating billions of ill gotten, tax subsidized money to give apologists like you a talking point is not enough in the context of the economic damage that Bezos has done.

*snip*

Alas. You know nothing about me. I actually don't like Jeff Bezos and have said so before. But not because of his wealth, but because of his political view points. I only used him as an example.

[Razor Blade]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I didn't say it's wrong to make money, nor that it's wrong to be wealthy, but I do say it is not correct that companies exist to make money. I don't care how much money a business donates, they shouldn't need to in the first place or should be doing it out of true good will not a critical need to because of systemic issues like wealth inequity driven by the utter desire to make as much money as possible.

 

People or companies with the ability to donate billions of dollars is to me an indicator of an issue existing, not good will or something to champion.

I think I should clarify... when I said " They aren't a charity, they're a company. They're in the business of making money" I was referring to Amazon, not every company. Still though businesses have to make money to stay in business. No matter the size. The amount of money Amazon makes is astounding...but they wouldn't make a dime if they were not successful in offering products and services people buy. It is really hard to regulate such a large company in a capitalistic economy without almost dismantling it. Increasing the cost to do business is either passed onto the customer or expenses are cut somewhere.

[PocketNerd]

1 hour ago, Razor Blade said:

That entirely depends on what kind of work you're talking about. If you have skills and experience companies are looking for, it makes you way more marketable. I'm not talking about just going to college and getting a degree...there is a real shortage of skilled labor in America...

 

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/dirty-jobs-mike-rowe-cte-skilled-trades.aspx

 

But if all people care about is getting a part time job down at the local supermarket or fast food restaurant then of course they're going to be at a major disadvantage.

You're really at a disadvantage no matter what. Just because you NEED skilled jobs, doesn't mean Businesses would be willing to pay a fair wage for them. They're always looking to get more out of you than they're willing to pay you. Which I suppose is fine, given that Businesses need to make a profit to survive. But I'm not fond of the idea if that means you don't get a living wage.

And again, if you try to push for more, it's back to the "$X or 0$" dilemma.

[Taf the Ghost]

45 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

How will the company know they got benefits before they get hired? On top of you just revise the employment laws to make it so they cant discriminate. Plus in some ways you cant be that kind of choosy with your workers. What is Amazon going to do, shut shop in areas that have a large amount of people on government assistance? In some areas Amazon is kinda stuck. For example, the warehouses in Michigan. We have two major airports, Detroit Metro and Willow Run and we have direct access to Canada. Lots of people here in Michgian are on goverment aid. And considering that most of the warehouses are located in Metro Detroit where a lot of the poorer people live, they dont have a choice. 

Depending on how costly the situation can get: yes, they could, though it's unlikely.

 

Dodging anti-competitive regulations is an artform for businesses now. The collapse of social sanction on businesses & government (and everyone only reacting to hard power now) means that it's really just a matter of finding the proper loophole, if it's going to be a problem. In the case of something like the public benefits law, you'd suddenly see "continuous employment" being an utterly key hiring criteria. At least in business-favored markets. 

 

There's also the issue of "one size fits no one" regulation, which is used by large businesses to prevent competition. And the whole rabbit hole of political corruption that desires those large corporations for many reasons. ("Featherbedding" is a big issue.)

 

It's part of why "positive incentives" normally work better, though far too many of them end up being just handouts to politically connected businesses. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Razor Blade said:

The amount of money Amazon makes is astounding...but they wouldn't make a dime if they were not successful in offering products and services people buy.

Either Amazon is in the business of making money or they are in the business of making a product or service, if it's the first then that is the issue. That's what I'm pointing to in general and here, Amazon should not be a profit making venture or be treated as one. 

 

Also no a company does not need to make a profit, 'make money' is well a very general term but I see you are mostly using in the context of making a profit. A company doesn't actually need to make a profit to grow, develop new products or services, or pay employees well. We can reinvest all profit back in to the business and make no profit, revenue can increase year over year and profit can be static, either a small amount or none at all.

 

Profit is actually a poor indicator of business success.

[Razor Blade]

3 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

You're really at a disadvantage no matter what. Just because you NEED skilled jobs, doesn't mean Businesses would be willing to pay a fair wage for them. They're always looking to get more out of you than they're willing to pay you. Which I suppose is fine, given that Businesses need to make a profit to survive. But I'm not fond of the idea if that means you don't get a living wage.

And again, if you try to push for more, it's back to the "$X or 0$" dilemma.

Businesses need skilled labor to make money... You can't expect people to jump on a machinist's position if you're not willing to pay a fair wage for it.

[Razor Blade]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Either Amazon is in the business of making money or they are in the business of making a product or service, if it's the first then that is the issue. That's what I'm pointing to in general and here, Amazon should not be a profit making venture or be treated as one. 

 

Also no a company does not need to make a profit, 'make money' is well a very general term but I see you are mostly using in the context of making a profit. A company doesn't actually need to make a profit to grow, develop new products or services, or pay employees well. We can reinvest all profit back in to the business and make no profit, revenue can increase year over year and profit can be static, either a small amount or none at all.

 

Profit is actually a poor indicator of business success.

Huh? Profit is the only way a business can grow...profit doesn't mean all the money that goes to the owner...The business needs profit in order to be able to reinvest in itself, pay bills, and pay it's employees. As a business owner I have to write myself a paycheck to get paid. It isn't like I can spend money out of the business on non business expenses...at least it is that way in America...the IRS would have a field day otherwise and my CPA would kill me (not literally...I think..)

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Razor Blade said:

Huh? Profit is the only way a business can grow...profit doesn't mean all the money that goes to the owner...The business needs profit in order to be able to reinvest in itself, pay bills, and pay it's employees. As a business owner I have to write myself a paycheck to get paid. It isn't like I can spend money out of the business on non business expenses...at least it is that way in America...the IRS would have a field day otherwise and my CPA would kill me (not literally...I think..)

Yes that is actually what I said, but when people talk about companies and champion this idea of making a profit they are in fact meaning the company should make a profit, a real one on the accounting books, and make a lot of it and use it to judge success.

 

If you reinvest operational profit back in to the business completely you would have made no profit, you are still operating with an operational profit but the business is not actually 'making money'.

 

That's the difference between revenue and profit, one has a lot more meaning and impact than the other does.

 

Edit:

So would I rather see Amazon make billions in profit then at some point donate huge amount of money to something like cancer research or instead make less profit and pay their employees more and not donate to cancer research, the second. If the company is doing that well then the employees are bringing that same value to the company and should be rewarded for it, everyone needs to get a slice of the pie and it doesn't have to be equal by any means but it needs to be 'fair'. I know fair is a really hard thing to define or measure but it does get easier as the top executives make millions per year, investors make millions and the employees live in a hole and eat poor quality foods and struggle to give their children the better educational opportunities that exist.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Razor Blade said:

Huh? Profit is the only way a business can grow...profit doesn't mean all the money that goes to the owner...The business needs profit in order to be able to reinvest in itself, pay bills, and pay it's employees. As a business owner I have to write myself a paycheck to get paid. It isn't like I can spend money out of the business on non business expenses...at least it is that way in America...the IRS would have a field day otherwise (and my CPA would kill me)

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/return-on-investment-roi

 

You're really thinking of some measure of Return on Investment. Negative ROI is normally the reason companies fold.

[Razor Blade]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes that is actually what I said, but when people talk about companies and champion this idea of making a profit they are in fact meaning the company should make a profit, a real one on the accounting books, and make a lot of it and use it to judge success.

 

If you reinvest operational profit back in to the business completely you would have made no profit, you are still operating with an operational profit but the business is not actually 'making money'.

 

That's the difference between revenue and profit, one has a lot more meaning and impact than the other does.

 

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/return-on-investment-roi

 

You're really thinking of some measure of Return on Investment. Negative ROI is normally the reason companies fold.

 

 

I was referring to the raw definition of profit to keep things simple. As in selling a product or service for more than it costs the company to make, produce, pay for, etc. In a very small business profit from sales might be the only need for them. As the business grows other revenue avenues can certainly be added, to the point where it starts to become exponentially more complex...

 

Yes companies that only go into business strictly for money are likely going to fail. Especially if tactics to increase revenue include sacrificing customer base. That's probably why there are people that go around buying failing companies at a discount, shaving everything they can while intentionally underbidding otherwise viable contracts to make the business look profitable, then selling it off to a competing company looking to buy out competition in that area. Those people don't give a damn about anything but making the dollar. Those people I have a problem with.