Page 5 of 21
Amazon
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:23 pm
by TheCatt
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
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:23 pm
by Leisher
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.
Amazon
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:00 pm
by Cakedaddy
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.
Amazon
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:11 pm
by GORDON
What are you, some kind of fascist?
~ what they'd say
Amazon
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:47 pm
by TheCatt
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.
Amazon
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:04 pm
by Leisher
Amazon
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:17 pm
by TheCatt
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:34 am
by TheCatt
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 8:39 am
by GORDON
Probably good overall, it will force other employers to pay more if they want people. In markets where they compete with Amazon for employees.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:04 am
by Leisher
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:16 am
by TheCatt
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:27 am
by Leisher
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:32 am
by TheCatt
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:19 pm
by Leisher
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:30 pm
by TheCatt
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.
Amazon
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:36 pm
by Leisher
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...
Amazon
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:00 pm
by Leisher
Artificial Intelligence is sexist.
How do you program: "Randomly pick some women even though they might be less qualified, so everyone feels good."?
Amazon
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:13 pm
by TheCatt
Amazon
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:05 pm
by Leisher
Yeah, I goofed up.
That link led me to another on the same subject of sex relations. I was also commenting there.
Fixed!
Amazon
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:08 pm
by GORDON
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.