BERNIE’S BIG WIN: Amazon Caves to Sanders, Raises Minimum Wage to $15

[Guvnah]

@Jezcoe

That really doesn’t say much.

Of course it does.

It just doesn’t say what YOU want it to say.

People CAN afford food and housing with a full-time job. They might not be able to afford the food and housing that YOU want them to have, but that’s not the government’s problem. (Or shouldn’t be.)

If someone wants more upscale digs and grub, he can earn more. This is a strong labor market. the point of this thread shows that Amazon recognizes it, and has reacted to it. The guy emptying garbage cans will now make $15/hr. And everyone else in the company will make more accordingly. It didn’t take Bernie Sanders to do that. It didn’t take government mandate.

And it didn’t take unions.

[Guvnah]

@Cynic

Subsistence living is too generous? Guess we need full time workers being homeless now?

… says the cynic.

( shrug )

PS: It’s evident you didn’t read what I really wrote.

[Cynic]

You made multiple posts implying the government programs were the issue, honestly they all made little sense to me; clarify?

Edit:I see you did, but their previous minimum wage is clearly below the poverty line in many areas of the country.

[IBC]

Amazon can do whatever they want re: raises. However, if any of you think that Bezos is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I’ve got a mine shaft to sell you. Amazon wouldn’t do this if Bezos didn’t see a lucrative upside.

[Guvnah]

@Jezcoe

What is the downside of Amazon being pressured to increase their wages?

Who pressured Amazon?

If anything pressured Amazon, it’s the labor market.

But just about every other lib in this thread argues that it certainly wasn’t Sanders.

[Guvnah]

@Cynic

You made multiple posts implying the government programs were the issue

People might be willing to take $12/hr because this-or-that government program can fill gaps.

That’s government incentivizing lower wages. And part of everyone’s existing wages need to be taxed to cover the cost of those programs.

Dial back the programs. People will demand more from their employer to fill those gaps. Employers who stick to their $12/hr entry-level wages will lose employees to companies like Amazon (and tons of others) that start at $15/hr.

[highroller]

I don’t know…It could be that large businesses are taking seriously the rise of socialism among the millennial generation, and are trying to stave off any potential downside that the future may bring. Many people here may scoff at socialism, but many millennials have been hurt by our current system. This does not bode well for people in that system.

But, I may be wrong…

[koushi_shinigami]

@Jezcoe

I am certainly not declaring a “victory”… I am just commenting on what seems to be a negative reaction to a company raising their wages.

As I said before. I think that supporting more labor unions would fix a lot of problems with low wages.

Ugh. Unions with all their corruption and incompetence? ■■■■ that and ■■■■ unions.

[koushi_shinigami]

@enki

so how much should they have increased the wages?

It’s not a question of how many dollars wages should be raised.

Real wages

Take a look at the second graph. Does that give you any ideas?

[Jezcoe]

@Guvnah

@Jezcoe

That really doesn’t say much.

Of course it does.

It just doesn’t say what YOU want it to say.

People CAN afford food and housing with a full-time job. They might not be able to afford the food and housing that YOU want them to have, but that’s not the government’s problem. (Or shouldn’t be.)

If someone wants more upscale digs and grub, he can earn more. This is a strong labor market. the point of this thread shows that Amazon recognizes it, and has reacted to it. The guy emptying garbage cans will now make $15/hr. And everyone else in the company will make more accordingly. It didn’t take Bernie Sanders to do that. It didn’t take government mandate.

And it didn’t take unions.

Well… apparently it did take pressure for Amazon to make this change or there would have been no reason for it.

If the workforce of Amazon did unionize, they more than likely would have gotten more.

[koushi_shinigami]

@Jezcoe

Well… apparently it did take pressure for Amazon to make this change or there would have been no reason for it.

If the workforce of Amazon did unionize, they more than likely would have gotten more.

No. they would not have.

[Jezcoe]

@Guvnah

@Jezcoe

What is the downside of Amazon being pressured to increase their wages?

Who pressured Amazon?

If anything pressured Amazon, it’s the labor market.

But just about every other lib in this thread argues that it certainly wasn’t Sanders.

I don’t think that it was Sanders.

I think that Sanders has the right idea about using the tax code to push up wages.

I am just a little amazed that there are some reacting like wages going up are a bad thing.

That’s all.

[Jezcoe]

@koushi_shinigami

@Jezcoe

Well… apparently it did take pressure for Amazon to make this change or there would have been no reason for it.

If the workforce of Amazon did unionize, they more than likely would have gotten more.

No. they would not have.

Yeah… they probably would have.

And it would have been a negotiation between labor and the employer… no government needed.

[tnt]

And it’s true for walmart and many other national corps.

Seems to me there are two ways to approach this -

• you are suggesting cut the programs and hope the corps loosen up their wallets when their work forces start starving and giving in teh streets.

• Or you could insist corps pay more, and let teh programs usage decline after that.

I don’t trust your method because we’ve seen corps ignore the situation of their work forces before. The Gilded Age gives us insight into that method.

[tnt]

@Jezcoe

I am just a little amazed that there are some reacting like wages going up are a bad thing.

That’s all.

Yeah, I know…why aren’t they jumping on teh bandwagon and thanking trump? Isn’t this part of the populism he ran on?

[Cynic]

Nice, the starving riots method, nice.

[tnt]

@Guvnah

People might be willing to take $12/hr because this-or-that government program can fill gaps.

That’s government incentivizing lower wages. And part of everyone’s existing wages need to be taxed to cover the cost of those programs.

Dial back the programs. People will demand more from their employer to fill those gaps. Employers who stick to their $12/hr entry-level wages will lose employees to companies like Amazon (and tons of others) that start at $15/hr.

In a country of 300 million people, the single worker trying to hold out for more really doesn’t stand a chance.

[party-free]

@koushi_shinigami

Apparently this week they do.

Why did you intentionally ignore the rest of that post that debunked both this administrator post and your support of it?

[Jezcoe]

Yeah… they would have done better if they were unionized.

Basically they got a raise but lost bonuses and stock.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-10-03/amazon-eliminating-bonuses-stock-awards-to-help-pay-for-raises

[Guvnah]

@tnt

• Or you could insist corps pay more, and let teh programs usage decline after that.

I don’t trust your method because we’ve seen corps ignore the situation of their work forces before. The Gilded Age gives us insight into that method.

Program usage only increases.

Of course you don’t trust the market. You’re a big government guy through and through. I don’t expect anything different from you.

And you can rest easy. There is no hope on the horizon of any government program like these being cut any time soon.

What we have is excessive government encouraging suppressed wages because people can fill the gaps with all that extra governmental involvement, and in response to that we’ll get even more government “insisting that corporations pay more”,

Government begets more government. It’s your pipe dream.