Current Events > Bernie Sanders introduces the BEZO act to help end corporate welfare.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

The Admiral posted...

I actually don't have a problem with this.

However, like most of Bernie's pea-brained ideas, this will end up costing many lower end workers their jobs. The folks making so little at large corporations that they're receiving federal welfare benefits are the most easily replaceable and/or likely candidates for automation and outsourcing.

Speaking for progressives here, we'll take the risk. And if those corporations want the job done and can't automate it, they'll stop paying peanuts . . . and upgrade to organic cashews.

Of course, the obvious workaround here is outsource contracting.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Of course, the obvious workaround here is outsource contracting.

Wasn't this threat made with ACA?
And every other labor protection?
1001 excuses to lube up for corporate masters. "Guys, there's nothing we can do ever, at all, for all eternity!!!"

Fuck that weak shit.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

You literally just admitted that they wont be following the law.

Yes, they will, by specifically hiring people less likely to be on public entitlements, and being extra picky about existing employees they think may be.

So in one post, your argument is that theyll maliciously comply with the law and in the next post your argument is that theyll skirt the law. Ok bud.

The proposal is about covering the cost of of public benefits the employees are receiving, so it just becomes another cost to be managed and minimized.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Wasn't this threat made with ACA?

Which is pretty much what happened.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/aca-staffing.aspx
http://fortune.com/2015/06/26/obamacare-aca-supreme-court-uber/

Questionmarktarius posted...

The proposal is about covering the cost of of public benefits the employees are receiving, so it just becomes another cost to be managed and minimized.

The maximum snap benefit is $649. If you work 40h work weeks, That's $4/h. Or for the average snap benefit, $1.5/h.

Bother of which, are lower than the proposed minimum wage increase.
If you think this is an insurmountable burden to these billion dollar corporations. . .
You're categorically wrong.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Which is pretty much what happened.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/aca-staffing.aspx
http://fortune.com/2015/06/26/obamacare-aca-supreme-court-uber/

Yet tens of millions more people got coverage.
No one said a net good won't have a cost.
(But this wont, because you're fear mongering for your masters.)
---

s0nicfan posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

I wonder what the conservative narrative against it will be, other than the non-starter of "no welfare anyways".

Why wouldn't the counter-narrative be that this has no upper limit and explicitly harms places like Goodwill that go out of their way to hire disabled people to give them work? I also don't see how companies are "getting welfare for free" as is implied here.

I don't think it's a terrible concept, but without seeing the details of the execution this has a million ways to backfire horribly.

Have you looked up the details?

Well the link has the full text of the proposed bill, so if you're looking for specifics:
1. It actually goes WAY farther than the TC implies and charges a 100% tax on "the qualified employee benefits" which includes food programs, section 8 housing, and medicaid
2. It makes no exceptions for nonprofits
3. It would begin the start of the calendar year not the fiscal year which just makes no sense at all
4. It makes it illegal for employers to inquire into whether they receive federal benefits, meaning a company has no idea how much extra they're going to have to pay for hiring someone.
5. Again, there's no upper limit here, meaning as the federal government decides to increase welfare, companies are forced to match the increase 100% perpetually.

@shockthemonkey

I'm also curious how food and housing are now parts of "corporate welfare" since they don't get subsidies like healthcare. If the argument is that companies are responsible for feeding and housing their employees through a livable wage, and the government has been "picking up the check", then making them price match welfare programs has the explicit opposite effect because it shifts responsibility to the government. It means companies would be able to make the argument that since they are already paying in to section 8 and food stamps, that they don't have to raise wages because those needs are covered. It also has the explicit opposit effect of "taxing the 1%", because the company is going to cover these costs through stagnating wages throughout the entire company.

Of course a bill this small presented at this point is clearly just a publicity stunt without a lot of thought put behind it, because it is severely lacking in the details required to actually be a functional piece of legislation.
---

s0nicfan posted...

4. It makes it illegal for employers to inquire into whether they receive federal benefits, meaning a company has no idea how much extra they're going to have to pay for hiring someone.

And when you can't ask upfront, the go-to fallback is demographics, which ends up creating discrimination.
https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/ban-the-box-campaign-reduces-black-employment-in-the-us

@s0nicfan

you really should just add shockthemonkey to your ignore list. you won't be missing anything of value
---

No sense in regulating corporations, they'll just get around it, much like the way superman's power is written. Better to just accept their endgame of merging into one entity and giving bare minimum shelters to the few humans they need to enhance the lives of the 5 richest people on earth.
---

foreverzero212 posted...

No sense in regulating corporations, they'll just get around it, much like the way superman's power is written. Better to just accept their endgame of merging into one entity and giving bare minimum shelters to the few humans they need to enhance the lives of the 5 richest people on earth.

Uh did you ever study any history? We were at much higher risk of this happening in the early 1900s when the oil barons and steel barons were around. It didn't happen then, it'll never happen in the future.

As marginal costs of doing business plummet, eventually we'll have no more profit motive and every service we know of will be autonomous and maintained by the government / collective will.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

But youre absolutely right that this is bill wasnt designed to pass, I think its trying to control the narrative - now that Fox News did a segment on how huge corporations paying so little ends of costing a ton in welfare to their employees, Sanders is trying to keep the conversation on making employers pay more rather than let it be spun into cutting those programs.

He's learning from the "Art of the Deal", I see.
Propose the ridiculous, then "compromise" down to what you actually wanted all along.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Of course, the obvious workaround here is outsource contracting.

Wasn't this threat made with ACA?
And every other labor protection?
1001 excuses to lube up for corporate masters. "Guys, there's nothing we can do ever, at all, for all eternity!!!"

Fuck that weak shit.

This post made me cringe.

DragonGirlYuki posted...

There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences if it passes. Might end up making things worse.

No doubt
---

The Admiral posted...

I actually don't have a problem with this.

However, like most of Bernie's pea-brained ideas, this will end up costing many lower end workers their jobs. The folks making so little at large corporations that they're receiving federal welfare benefits are the most easily replaceable and/or likely candidates for automation and outsourcing.

No biggie, regulate those too.
---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

The Admiral posted...

I actually don't have a problem with this.

However, like most of Bernie's pea-brained ideas, this will end up costing many lower end workers their jobs. The folks making so little at large corporations that they're receiving federal welfare benefits are the most easily replaceable and/or likely candidates for automation and outsourcing.

No biggie, regulate those too.

Robut tax?

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

The Admiral posted...

I actually don't have a problem with this.

However, like most of Bernie's pea-brained ideas, this will end up costing many lower end workers their jobs. The folks making so little at large corporations that they're receiving federal welfare benefits are the most easily replaceable and/or likely candidates for automation and outsourcing.

Speaking for progressives here, we'll take the risk.

How can you say that? You're essentially playing games with people's lives.
---

It's a pretty stupid idea. All it's going to do is encourage employers to hire fewer poor people.
---

As a piece of political theater, which all Democratic bills until 2020 are, it's fine. It's good to point out the failures of Bezos, etc. lest that territory be ceded to the Tucker Carlsons of the world.

As a piece of legislation, I have serious qualms with it, for reasons outlined here:
https://twitter.com/arindube/status/1037522143469293568

The notion that post-tax-transfer wage is held constant at a given historical moment is a really bad assumption. It suggests (contrary to evidence and intuition) that better outside option of workers doesn't raise wages, but rather reduces wages.

http://theweek.com/articles/793505/bernie-sanders-picking-wrong-fight-amazon
---

Antifar posted...

https://twitter.com/arindube/status/1037522143469293568

The notion that post-tax-transfer wage is held constant at a given historical moment is a really bad assumption. It suggests (contrary to evidence and intuition) that better outside option of workers doesn't raise wages, but rather reduces wages.

I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing the second sentence.

"better outside option"?

Questionmarktarius posted...

"better outside option"?

Read: welfare. If people have the ability to make ends meet regardless of whether they take a job, that generally allows them to hold out for higher wages.
---

Antifar posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

"better outside option"?

Read: welfare. If people have the ability to make ends meet regardless of whether they take a job, that generally allows them to hold out for higher wages.

This is essentially arguing that welfare cliffs are a good thing.

The danger here is that you create a "NEET" class who has no real want or need to, uh, EET.
The disaster here is that it becomes a popular enough option that the economy implodes, austerity happens, and then the riots begin.
The absolute goddamn nightmare is that it gets bad enough that a "benevolent" tyranny begins assigning work to everyone, then we all wait in a breadline the rest of the day.

Questionmarktarius posted...

This is essentially arguing that welfare cliffs are a good thing.

I would tend to argue for universal-based social programs, not means testing. At any rate, the Sanders bill suggests that somehow social programs allow Amazon to pay low wages, but that's not really true, and there's no reason to believe Amazon would be paying more in the absence of those programs.
---

Best alternative;
Its time for Universal Basic Income.
https://www.yang2020.com/
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Best alternative;
Its time for Universal Basic Income.
https://www.yang2020.com/

Obligatory "how do you intend to pay for it?"

damn those poor billionaire ceo's might only get to buy four yachts a year now instead of five
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Best alternative;
Its time for Universal Basic Income.
https://www.yang2020.com/

Obligatory "how do you intend to pay for it?"

Yang calls for $1,000/mo for every american no strings attached, which is just about $4 trillion ($1.5 trillion if you only count adults) in cost per year.

According to the link below, the sum total of ALL the government's spending adds up to just about $4 trillion, so all we'd have to do is DOUBLE our spending if you wanted to cover EVERYONE (kids included).

If you are only sending checks to adults, then the sum total of entitlements spent by the government each year is about $2T ($1T for social security, $0.5T on healthcare, and about $400B in other safety net programs).

So all you'd need to do is completely eliminate the nation's entitlements programs and replace them with this flat check and an understanding that beyond that point if someone spends their money poorly, they're solely responsible for the repercussions.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
---

s0nicfan posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Best alternative;
Its time for Universal Basic Income.
https://www.yang2020.com/

Obligatory "how do you intend to pay for it?"

Yang calls for $1,000/mo for every american no strings attached, which is just about $4 trillion ($1.5 trillion if you only count adults) in cost per year.

According to the link below, the sum total of ALL the government's spending adds up to just about $4 trillion, so all we'd have to do is DOUBLE our spending if you wanted to cover EVERYONE (kids included).

If you are only sending checks to adults, then the sum total of entitlements spent by the government each year is about $2T ($1T for social security, $0.5T on healthcare, and about $400B in other safety net programs).

So all you'd need to do is completely eliminate the nation's entitlements programs and replace them with this flat check and an understanding that beyond that point if someone spends their money poorly, they're solely responsible for the repercussions.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Obligatory "think of the children!!" hysteria.