Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:23 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote: "Stop Subsidies Act". Isn't raising the price of everything to cover artificially inflated wages a subsidy? Oh, wait. Do they actually think Amazon will just take a smaller profit instead of raising prices?

Shouldn't the people benefiting from Amazon pay for the employees?

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:23 pm**

Cakedaddy wrote: "Stop Subsidies Act". Isn't raising the price of everything to cover artificially inflated wages a subsidy? Oh, wait. Do they actually think Amazon will just take a smaller profit instead of raising prices?

Yes, and that's why they're all morons.

TheCatt wrote: Shouldn't the people benefiting from Amazon pay for the employees?

Yes, and that's why they're greedy pricks.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:00 pm**

I still say, stop trying to live and/or raise a family on the income of a shit job. Get a better job that pays what you need.

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:11 pm**

What are you, some kind of fascist?

~ what they'd say

Posted: **Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:47 pm**

TheCatt wrote: Today, the person offered me $4 total for two later orders. wtf? It was hurricane supplies. That person said they could not help me, and transferred me to someone else. The other person then said they would "expedite" the order.

SURPRISE. The expediting did nothing, and the orders are not here. The hurricane will be here tomorrow, so I'm guessing a 0% chance of things arriving tomorrow.

I complained again today, and they refunded my order.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:04 pm**

More on Amazon Go stores.

Amazon 4 Star is their latest brick and mortar store.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:17 pm**

Honestly, at this point, I almost want that "bring stuff into my house service". I have less time than anything these days, so even leaving my house, no matter how convenient they make the store, is too much.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:34 am**

TheCatt wrote:
Cakedaddy wrote: "Stop Subsidies Act". Isn't raising the price of everything to cover artificially inflated wages a subsidy? Oh, wait. Do they actually think Amazon will just take a smaller profit instead of raising prices?
Shouldn't the people benefiting from Amazon pay for the employees?

Amazon announces $15 minimum wage for all employees
Also...

The change takes effect November 1 and applies to full-time, part-time and temporary workers. Amazon (AMZN) says the $15 minimum wage will benefit more than 250,000 Amazon employees, plus 100,000 seasonal workers.
...
Amazon also said its public policy team will begin lobbying for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which has been $7.25 an hour since 2009.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:39 am**

Probably good overall, it will force other employers to pay more if they want people. In markets where they compete with Amazon for employees.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:04 am**

In completely unrelated news, Amazon announces across the board price increases...

No, but seriously, if corporations were willing to make $1.8B in profits each quarter rather $2.2B, they could increase the overall standard of living in the country.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:16 am**

Leisher wrote:
No, but seriously, if corporations were willing to make $1.8B in profits each quarter rather $2.2B, they could increase the overall standard of living in the country.

The problem with this is that corporations basically have 1 drive: maximize shareholder return. That is their primary goal, The End. If they do not do that, they are subject to lawsuits.

Leisher wrote: In completely unrelated news, Amazon announces across the board price increases...

350k workers, let's say making $6/hour more on average, and assume 2k hours/yr, despite many of these being seasonal/part-time. I'll ignore payroll tax increase to help offset that over-estimate. That's $4.2bn/yr, versus $180bn in revenue in 2017 (and likely over $200bn in 2018). So about a 2% increase in costs, worst-case.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:27 am**

TheCatt wrote: The problem with this is that corporations basically have 1 drive: maximize shareholder return. That is their primary goal, The End. If they do not do that, they are subject to lawsuits.

I am aware. I'm just saying there has to be a better way.

I'm very pro-Capitalism, but we don't live in a capitalist society. Thus, we can and should tinker a bit since we don't allow the market to make the adjustments. We shouldn't have a company where the CEO and board are multi-millionaires or billionaires, yet people in the lowest rungs of the company are on food stamps and have to piss in garbage cans because they're not allowed to take breaks.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:32 am**

Leisher wrote: I'm very pro-Capitalism, but ... [w]e shouldn't have a company where the CEO and board are multi-millionaires or billionaires, yet people in the lowest rungs of the company are on food stamps and have to piss in garbage cans because they're not allowed to take breaks.

I feel like you're contradicting yourself. I mean, I agree with you here, but that's not a very Capitalistic view.

I think capitalism needs rules and regulations, and have made that peace. The devil is obviously how many rules/regulations.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:19 pm**

TheCatt wrote:
Leisher wrote: I'm very pro-Capitalism, but ... [w]e shouldn't have a company where the CEO and board are multi-millionaires or billionaires, yet people in the lowest rungs of the company are on food stamps and have to piss in garbage cans because they're not allowed to take breaks.
I feel like you're contradicting yourself. I mean, I agree with you here, but that's not a very Capitalistic view.

I think capitalism needs rules and regulations, and have made that peace. The devil is obviously how many rules/regulations.

That's fair. I just think we're well past the point where the devil has taken over.

California just passed a law telling companies who they can have on their board. My viewpoint here is a step backwards from that.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:30 pm**

Leisher wrote: California just passed a law telling companies who they can have on their board. My viewpoint here is a step backwards from that.

My wife didn't like the rule either. I'm OK with part of it.

. The law requires larger firms that have headquarters within the state to place at least one woman on their boards. [The new law requires publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to include at least one woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019 as part of an effort to close the gender gap in business] This needs to come into effect by 2019. Then, based on the size of the board, up to three women members by 2021.
[By the end of July 2021, a minimum of two women must sit on boards with five members, and there must be at least three women on boards with six or more members.]

I'm fine with the first half, but not the 2nd half.

I don't love it. But I'm OK with it.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:36 pm**

I'm not.

Not because I'm against diversity. I think if you want to create and market products for every demographic and market, you need your company to match those demos and markets.

I'm against forcing companies to hire a gender or skin color rather than the most qualified applicant. They could, literally, hurt a company's bottom line by forcing them to hire someone unqualified.

Oh, and not for nothing, but what about the other 70 genders? Fucking bigoted law...

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:00 pm**

Artificial Intelligence is sexist.

How do you program: "Randomly pick some women even though they might be less qualified, so everyone feels good."?

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:13 pm**

Leisher wrote: Artificial Intelligence is sexist.

How do you program: "Randomly pick some women even though they might be less qualified, so everyone feels good."?

I assume that was supposed to be the Amazon link? (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ ... s-against/)

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:05 pm**

Yeah, I goofed up.

That link led me to another on the same subject of sex relations. I was also commenting there.

Fixed!

Posted: **Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:08 pm**

Leisher wrote: That link led me to another on the subject of same sex relations. I was also commenting there.

I'm guessing that you were adamantly "pro," on that subject.