Thousands of Amazon workers receive food stamps. Bernie wants company to pay.

[KingSweden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shocker - I actually agree with Senator Sanders on this issue. The welfare state allows these large corporations to underpay employees as the companies know that the taxpayer will pick up the tab through various welfare benefits. That's an example of crony capitalism at its finest. Senator Sanders' bill would help taxpayers, shrink government as less public assistance is needed over time, and help American workers.

Sure, he may be wrong 99% of the time, but good on him for this.

What do you think?

Tucker Carlson is also complaining about this. I like this resurgent anti-big business conservatism

Well, it's not necessarily about being anti-big business. If a company is successful, competes fairly, and does nothing to game the system, I will support them. What I'm against is this system of cronyism where taxpayers are subsidizing bad business practices. We need a true free market!

I’d be curious to see if there’s any literature on the cost to GDP from cronyism. There has to be some measure, right?

Considering this is a very backhanded form of corporate welfare, most estimates don't include it and put the number at around $90 billion in the form of direct tax breaks and subsidies. So you get about $240 billion total when combining this ($150 billion) with the direct cronyism. That's an absurd amount of money.

No kidding.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's an interesting idea, but why only apply it to large employers? What makes it more moral for small employers to benefit from welfare payments? The fact that people are more likely to have a personal connection to a small employer shouldn't mean they get special treatment and subsidies.

A lot of small employers are jobs that people simply enjoy working at and are kind of hobbies that they aren't really doing for the money, usually the workers are part time or have plenty of money. Things like record and book stores, music venues, churches, etc.

So? If the employees are claiming welfare benefits, it's as much a subsidy of low wages as it is for Amazon or Walmart. Or are we in business of subsidizing "happy" retail jobs but not "sad" ones?

Virtually no one who works at those jobs is on welfare. They either have "real" jobs as well, are in college, or have trust funds.

So then the employers wouldn't pay the tax. Did you read anything in the proposal or just get angry about record stores being under attack? They get taxed based on employees claiming welfare.


I will say that the one downside of the proposal is that encourages employers to mandate longer hours so that employees "make" more money at the same hourly rates.

Ah that makes sense. In that case then yes it should apply across the board.

[Beet]

I agree with Sanders on this one as well.

[Progressive Pessimist]

For the sake of consistency - as I have complained about this in regards to WalMart, I will complain about this in regards to Amazon.

I think Sen Sanders bill is a step in the right direction. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing their decision to implement poverty wages.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Am I the one who's worried about this proposal? It seems to me like this policy increases risk in discriminatory hiring. From an employer's prospective, the best candidate will now be a young, single person with an education (or even better, a high schooler from a middle class background). People with dependents, e.g., single parents, will be much riskier to hire. Any applicant who discloses they live in public housing or receives any form of TANF assistance will be considered a liability. This could permeate through other less obvious channels too, e.g., discrimination against people who live in certain neighborhoods/area of town, people of certain ethnicities that disproportionately rely on assistance, etc. as employers try to hedge bets by profiling applicants and select those who are least likely to fit the mold of someone who they need to cover assistance costs for. We're already seeing something similar as employers mandated to provide health insurance try to underemploy their employees to avoid having to pay them benefits as full-time employees.

I'd much rather see something applied evenly throughout the labor market like a judiciously applied minimum wage increase. Even better (maybe) would be something like an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shocker - I actually agree with Senator Sanders on this issue. The welfare state allows these large corporations to underpay employees as the companies know that the taxpayer will pick up the tab through various welfare benefits. That's an example of crony capitalism at its finest. Senator Sanders' bill would help taxpayers, shrink government as less public assistance is needed over time, and help American workers.

Sure, he may be wrong 99% of the time, but good on him for this.

same

[Torie]

If limited to a given size of employer, that would create an economic pressure to have smaller entities. Non chain stores might get a new lease on life (at least until they are covered too). Beyond that, it is just another form of minimum wage, and thus a very substantial increase in the minimum wage. That will create incentives to mechanize, and speed the process of machines doing what humans do, and reduce personal service. Nobody will be left on the floor to tell you where anything is, or advice as to what to buy. Thus while the current system allows low value added people to work, this proposal to the extent it applies, will over time shut them out. What happens to people who don't add value equal to a living wage, so that nobody will hire them? What is the policy fix for that?

This issue interests me, because I used to be against the minimum wage in theory. But with the earned income credit, food stamps, etc., the government is indeed subsidizing low wage workers. So as the minimum wage goes up, the subsidy goes down. Thus the real policy goal should be to get the goldilocks minimum wage number, which reduces government subsidies to some extent, while not at the margins shutting out large numbers of workers entirely, or incentivizing even more rapid mechanization or reduction in personal services. And oh yes, what do we do about imports from low wage countries? The higher the mandated wage, the more imports. So along with more rapid mechanization is the exporting of jobs overseas - Ross Perot's giant sucking sound. Gosh, I sound like a protectionist on this one. Oh, the horror, the horror!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You hear a lot about how people like Bezos made their fortune entirely on their own, but the reality is no business enterprise would be successfull without the workforce, so maybe the workforce deserves decent treatment from a guy making millions of dollars each day, he wouldn't be making without them working for this?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shocker - I actually agree with Senator Sanders on this issue. The welfare state allows these large corporations to underpay employees as the companies know that the taxpayer will pick up the tab through various welfare benefits. That's an example of crony capitalism at its finest. Senator Sanders' bill would help taxpayers, shrink government as less public assistance is needed over time, and help American workers.

Sure, he may be wrong 99% of the time, but good on him for this.

What do you think?

Tucker Carlson is also complaining about this. I like this resurgent anti-big business conservatism

Well, it's not necessarily about being anti-big business. If a company is successful, competes fairly, and does nothing to game the system, I will support them. What I'm against is this system of cronyism where taxpayers are subsidizing bad business practices. We need a true free market!

I’d be curious to see if there’s any literature on the cost to GDP from cronyism. There has to be some measure, right?

I’m not an expert on it myself, but I perused a site or two for a public admin class discussing the estimated loss to productivity from corruption. I’ll note from a more recent reading that there are some schools of thought as to corruption’s benefits, but this is mostly a type of corruption, such as bribing legislators to vote for economically productive legislation, or bribing officials to ignore certain things in heavily bureaucratic structures. This was discussed as a feature of “East Asian” corruption, the likes of which was seen in the Tigers in the 1990’s. On the whole, however, it usually diverts economic resources from productive uses, as in many Third World countries where money feeds into patrimony all systems.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I have to give Bernie and Elizabeth Warren some props for coming up with some great ideas in their recent legislation that benefits the people, but doesn't cripple businesses. 

This is the kind of thing I want to see more from in the left: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-isnt-out-to-get-capitalism-shes-out-to-save-it/2018/08/30/26d59856-ac7e-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.292e0eb7bf79

[Fuzzy Bear]

What happens when Amazon raises the wages of each and every employee to where they no longer qualify for food stamps and public housing?

The corporation would likely pay less money out, and the employees would then lose their food stamps and eligibility for public housing assistance.  Would they be better off if that were the case?

The devil is in the details here.  This "solution" may have a cheaper way out than what would be implemented, that would leave the workers less well off than they are now.

[Person Man]

It's an interesting idea, but why only apply it to large employers? What makes it more moral for small employers to benefit from welfare payments? The fact that people are more likely to have a personal connection to a small employer shouldn't mean they get special treatment and subsidies.

A lot of small employers are jobs that people simply enjoy working at and are kind of hobbies that they aren't really doing for the money, usually the workers are part time or have plenty of money. Things like record and book stores, music venues, churches, etc.

So? If the employees are claiming welfare benefits, it's as much a subsidy of low wages as it is for Amazon or Walmart. Or are we in business of subsidizing "happy" retail jobs but not "sad" ones?

Virtually no one who works at those jobs is on welfare. They either have "real" jobs as well, are in college, or have trust funds.

So then the employers wouldn't pay the tax. Did you read anything in the proposal or just get angry about record stores being under attack? They get taxed based on employees claiming welfare.


I will say that the one downside of the proposal is that encourages employers to mandate longer hours so that employees "make" more money at the same hourly rates.

Hmm. That’s actually a pretty good critique.

But there's another saving grace. Getting the hours is important  and might not be possible as a crew person at a warehouse retailer or fast food  restaurant .

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What happens when Amazon raises the wages of each and every employee to where they no longer qualify for food stamps and public housing?

The corporation would likely pay less money out, and the employees would then lose their food stamps and eligibility for public housing assistance.  Would they be better off if that were the case?

The devil is in the details here.  This "solution" may have a cheaper way out than what would be implemented, that would leave the workers less well off than they are now.

This is an interesting counterpoint and merits attention.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What happens when Amazon raises the wages of each and every employee to where they no longer qualify for food stamps and public housing?

The corporation would likely pay less money out, and the employees would then lose their food stamps and eligibility for public housing assistance.  Would they be better off if that were the case?

The devil is in the details here.  This "solution" may have a cheaper way out than what would be implemented, that would leave the workers less well off than they are now.

This is an interesting counterpoint and merits attention.

I would state that wouldn't talk Amazon's Numbers Crunchers long enough to have the answer, and act accordingly.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What happens when Amazon raises the wages of each and every employee to where they no longer qualify for food stamps and public housing?

The corporation would likely pay less money out, and the employees would then lose their food stamps and eligibility for public housing assistance.  Would they be better off if that were the case?

The devil is in the details here.  This "solution" may have a cheaper way out than what would be implemented, that would leave the workers less well off than they are now.

This is an interesting counterpoint and merits attention.

I would state that wouldn't talk Amazon's Numbers Crunchers long enough to have the answer, and act accordingly.

Definitely not.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What happens when Amazon raises the wages of each and every employee to where they no longer qualify for food stamps and public housing?

The corporation would likely pay less money out, and the employees would then lose their food stamps and eligibility for public housing assistance.  Would they be better off if that were the case?

The devil is in the details here.  This "solution" may have a cheaper way out than what would be implemented, that would leave the workers less well off than they are now.

This is an interesting counterpoint and merits attention.

I would state that wouldn't talk Amazon's Numbers Crunchers long enough to have the answer, and act accordingly.

Definitely not.

I mistyped.  I meant to say that Amazon's Numbers Crunchers can have the answer in a relatively short amount of time, and they'll know which way is cheaper.  Probably before Congress does.

I'll say this:  If Amazon and companies like them get behind this, I'd be worried that the workers will lose out in all of this, given the means-tested nature of our Safety Net.

[IceSpear]

Anecdote: I actually worked at an Amazon warehouse for a bit in Kent, WA. It was a modern day sweatshop if I've ever seen one. You work 50 hours a week, 5 days a week, 10 hour shifts. Technically it's supposed to be 40 hours and 4 days a week but they called a mandatory overtime day pretty much every week. Around $15 an hour.  I was a packer, so I stood in the same spot for 10 hours packing boxes. It wasn't hard or anything, but obviously it was extremely tedious and exhausting. They timed you and you needed to pack on average 4 boxes per minute, which means about 2200 boxes per person per day. If you fell below "rate", you got a talking to and could eventually be disciplined or fired. It's very hard to keep up with that rate, especially when you get tired after constantly doing the same thing for 6+ hours, and it means you basically have no time to take a breather, stretch your legs, use the bathroom, etc. Except for the two 15 minute breaks, which were really <10 minutes each because the place is huge and it takes forever to walk to the break room and back, and they want you to start again exactly on time.

I heard stories about people being gone for 5 minutes to use the bathroom and getting in trouble for it because no boxes were scanned in those 5 minutes, people passing out from heat exhaustion and having to go to an on site medical clinic (which is just bizarre), and several other horror stories. It truly was a hellscape. I noped out after only a couple weeks, but there were some people who worked there for years. I'll never understand how. Apparently most people agree with me, because turnover there was massive. They hire in waves, and at least half of the ~30-40 people I was hired with quit after the first week. It makes me wonder how they don't ever run out of available warm bodies willing to do this crap work.

On the bright side, it's very easy to get a job there. There's no interview, and you need no experience. Just pass the background check and a drug test and you're in. So it's a pretty good last resort to have for people that have trouble finding jobs I guess. Better the Amazon sweatshop than homelessness.

Oh, and if you ever wondered why your Amazon box is packed sh**ttily without appropriate amounts of bubble wrap, this is why. Those seconds are precious and they're all Amazon cares about.

AMA I guess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If limited to a given size of employer, that would create an economic pressure to have smaller entities. Non chain stores might get a new lease on life (at least until they are covered too). Beyond that, it is just another form of minimum wage, and thus a very substantial increase in the minimum wage. That will create incentives to mechanize, and speed the process of machines doing what humans do, and reduce personal service. Nobody will be left on the floor to tell you where anything is, or advice as to what to buy. Thus while the current system allows low value added people to work, this proposal to the extent it applies, will over time shut them out. What happens to people who don't add value equal to a living wage, so that nobody will hire them? What is the policy fix for that?

This issue interests me, because I used to be against the minimum wage in theory. But with the earned income credit, food stamps, etc., the government is indeed subsidizing low wage workers. So as the minimum wage goes up, the subsidy goes down. Thus the real policy goal should be to get the goldilocks minimum wage number, which reduces government subsidies to some extent, while not at the margins shutting out large numbers of workers entirely, or incentivizing even more rapid mechanization or reduction in personal services. And oh yes, what do we do about imports from low wage countries? The higher the mandated wage, the more imports. So along with more rapid mechanization is the exporting of jobs overseas - Ross Perot's giant sucking sound. Gosh, I sound like a protectionist on this one. Oh, the horror, the horror!

Well if you go by type cast and play this scenario out, I come out with the following:

Democrats (Pro-science/technologhy, close with tech firms) - Redistribute the profits
Republicans (skeptical of science/technologhy, hostile to tech firms) - Protectionism/Restrictions on utilization of technology

[Koharu]

Am I the one who's worried about this proposal? It seems to me like this policy increases risk in discriminatory hiring. From an employer's prospective, the best candidate will now be a young, single person with an education (or even better, a high schooler from a middle class background). People with dependents, e.g., single parents, will be much riskier to hire. Any applicant who discloses they live in public housing or receives any form of TANF assistance will be considered a liability. This could permeate through other less obvious channels too, e.g., discrimination against people who live in certain neighborhoods/area of town, people of certain ethnicities that disproportionately rely on assistance, etc. as employers try to hedge bets by profiling applicants and select those who are least likely to fit the mold of someone who they need to cover assistance costs for. We're already seeing something similar as employers mandated to provide health insurance try to underemploy their employees to avoid having to pay them benefits as full-time employees.

I'd much rather see something applied evenly throughout the labor market like a judiciously applied minimum wage increase. Even better (maybe) would be something like an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

You're not the only one, but we seem to be the minority here. What you mention recomposes my fears, as well. I, too, would much rather see a raise in minimum wages or maybe a tax on companies who pay below a certain wage level, rather than directly connecting it to whether or not the employees are on assistance. So sure, you can pay 6.25 if you want, but then you're going to pay more in tax per each employee at that level. If you pay 7.25 you are still taxed extra but not as much as the 6.25, etc etc.