Why Isn't Trump Doing This?

[Straight Shooter]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will soon introduce legislation that would require large employers such as Amazon, Walmart and McDonald’s to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and other federal assistance received by their employees. The goal, he says, is to force corporations to pay a living wage and curb about $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go to funding federal assistance programs for low-wage workers each year.

The bill, which Sanders plans to introduce in the Senate on Sept. 5, would impose a 100 percent tax on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees. For example, if an Amazon employee receives $300 in food stamps, Amazon would be taxed $300.

“At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, the gap between the very rich and everyone else continues to grow wider," Sanders said.

Labor groups say that gap is particularly pronounced at the nation’s largest — and most profitable — companies, including Walmart, which has about 2.2 million workers, and Amazon, which employs more than 575,000.

Public records obtained by the New Food Economy, a nonprofit news organization, show that thousands of Amazon employees rely on the government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) to make ends meet. As many as 1 in 3 Amazon employees in Arizona — and about 1 in 10 in Pennsylvania and Ohio — receive food stamps, according to an April report by the New Food Economy, based in New York.

Amazon spokeswoman Melanie Etches said the figures were “misleading because they include people who only worked for Amazon for a short period of time and/or who chose to work part-time,” she said in a statement. “We have hundreds of full-time roles available, however, some prefer part-time for the flexibility or other personal reasons.”

Sanders’s bill would be an extension of a petition he started on Tuesday calling on the world’s richest man, Amazon founder Jeffrey P. Bezos, to pay workers a living wage and to improve working conditions at Amazon warehouses. As of Friday afternoon, it had 112,000 signatures. (Bezos also owns The Washington Post.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...s-wants-amazon-pay-up/?utm_term=.b86523be501f

Why isn't Trump proposing this? This is what boggles my mind when it comes to this president. Yesterday he was on Twitter ranting about how Google's algorithm is rigged (it isn't). Before that he was ranting about Amazon ripping off the USPS (they aren't). Now I'm not saying that big tech doesn't deserve to be attacked. They do. It's just that Trump is attacking them for the wrong reasons! These attacks lack among other things reason, data or grammar. This in turn weakens his argument. Instead of attacking Bezos and Amazon for ripping off the USPS he should instead explain how Amazon, the world's richest internet company, pays it's workers poor wages thus leading them to rely on federal assistance. Now a smart politician would take this message to his rallies in Ohio and Pennsylvania-where 1 in 10 Amazon workers are on food stamps. A smart politician would say that if anyone is getting ripped off, it's you the taxpayer. A smart politician would see this as a winning issue because not only would it garner support from his supporters but among liberals as well. A smart politician would see this as an opportunity to peel off Bernie supporters. But you see this president is not a smart politician. He's not intellectually curious. The only way he'd take up this issue is if Hannity or Lou Dobbs covered it on their show.

Update: Tucker Carlson tweeted about Bernie and this proposed bill. He's in favor of it. I wonder if Trump is now going to support this on Twitter in the morning

Glad to see Tucker has decided to come over to my side
https://board.freeones.com/showthre...axes-in-2015&p=9358981&viewfull=1#post9358981

 

[Straight Shooter]

Bernie Sanders introduces ‘Stop BEZOS’ bill to tax Amazon for underpaying workers
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/1...-amazon-worker-pay-corporate-welfare-tax-bill

 

[sean miguel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...s-wants-amazon-pay-up/?utm_term=.b86523be501f

Why isn't Trump proposing this? This is what boggles my mind when it comes to this president. Yesterday he was on Twitter ranting about how Google's algorithm is rigged (it isn't).

Off topic, but since you brought it up - wasn't google fined $2.7 Billion by the EU for manipulating their search algorithm?


https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/27/15872354/google-eu-fine-antitrust-shopping

 

[Bonejangles]

I think the problem would be the "FORCED" part

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will soon introduce legislation that would require large employers such as Amazon, Walmart and McDonald’s to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and other federal assistance received by their employees. The goal, he says, is to force corporations to pay a living wage and curb about $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go to funding federal assistance programs for low-wage workers each year.

Forcing business to cover costs in addition to their wages or other compensation packages isn't popular to his party

Employment is a 2-party agreement, Trump shouldn't rip companies for offering jobs that employees voluntarily accept. His much more likely to rip them for slanting their business practices against what he thinks is his best interests or him personally

 

[Straight Shooter]

Hearing critics like Bernie Sanders, Amazon raises its U.S. minimum wage to $15

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h...inimum-wage-to-15-across-the-board-2018-10-02

 

[LunaMo]

It does seem the right thing to do

 

[sean miguel]

Hearing critics like Bernie Sanders, Amazon raises its U.S. minimum wage to $15

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/h...inimum-wage-to-15-across-the-board-2018-10-02

critics alone wouldn't have made that happen. Like every other leftist gotdamn fucking hypocrite in this regard - it's whether it was economically feasible. And in this job market (thank you, President Trump), it is.


If Bernie Sanders' tax policy would've been in place do you think amazon would've raised their minimum wage to $15/hr?

yeah, I thought so.

 

[Rey C.]

As always, the devil is in the details. No for-profit corporation is altruistic when it raises wages or benefits. It's usually done either to attract or retain employees in a competitive job market (which we have now, with our near full-employment situation), or it's a PR ploy meant to make headlines (when in fact, fewer are being paid more, while those at the margin will be laid off).

I'll be anxious to see what Amazon's total cost vs. average wage plus benefits cost per employee is over the next couple of years. My guess is, the average will be higher, but the total cost for a given trailing twelve month period will be about the same (comparing like for like, I mean). I haven't followed this particular story that closely, but I am aware that other companies that have recently announced *seemingly* larger than average wage increases have either cut bonuses and discretionary benefits or they've cut the overall employee headcount in certain areas through automation.

Like I said, I haven't dug into the weeds on Amazon's plans, but I did hear that they've eliminated bonuses and redone the raise structure (now, once you top out, the cost of living ceiling may not rise the way it used to - we'll see) at the fulfillment centers and they're driving hard on increased automation efforts... which will eliminate a good many lower skill jobs (which are the ones that minimum wage generally applies to). Walmart, Kroger, Target, McDonalds, Lowes and many others are doing the same thing. Self-serve and self-checkout kiosks are popping up like weeds throughout the retail space.

While we're at it, last I checked, most Americans who hold full time employment, but don't make enough to survive without public assistance, work for small businesses, not large corporations. If this is the right way to go, why wouldn't it be more effective to apply these taxes to small businesses?

 

[Rey C.]

And the shoes begin to drop...

Business Insider

Amazon's wage hike is 'not all roses' for its workers (AMZN)

Ethel Jiang
Oct. 8, 2018, 09:21 AM

Amazon announced last week that it is raising minimum wage for US and UK employees, but Nomura Instinet analysts say the pay hike comes at a cost.

"This was not all roses as Amazon is eliminating restricted stock options and monthly incentive bonuses for hourly employees," a team of Instinet analysts led by Simeon Siegel said in a note sent out to clients on Monday.

Siegel noted that, prior to the hike, Amazon's US fulfillment center employees earned an average hourly wage more than $15 when including stock and incentive bonus. And so, these employees will actually "lose out" after the new wage change.

Last week the tech giant said that, starting from November 1, it will lift its US minimum hourly wage to $15 per hour and its UK minimum wage to £10.50 ($13.60) for the London area and £9.50 ($12.36) for the rest of the UK. The decision follows sustained pressure from Sen. Bernie Sanders, who attacked Amazon for the amount it pays its workers.

Amazon explained its decision to phase its restricted stock unit program citing hourly employees preferred the “predictability and immediacy of cash to RSUs,”or restricted stock units, and mentioned that the company is "phasing out the incentive pay component."

By Siegel's calculation, the wage increase — spanning full-time, part-time, temporary, and temporary agency employees in the US and UK— could drive $1.3 billion to $2.7 billion of incremental expenses. But the plan to phase its restricted stock units and variable compensations could save Amazon $900 million. Therefore, after excluding savings by eliminating benefits, Amazon could see a net cost of $400 million-$1.9 billion, suggesting only 15-70 basis point of deleverage, Siegel said.

My guess is still that once the automation projects really kick in, that $400 million-$1.9 billion estimate will be closer to breakeven in just a few years time. Plus, unlike people, machines can be depreciated (tax savings) and they don't get benefits.

I read in another story that those who now make say $10/hr. will soon make $15 - and so they can be happy. I'm assuming that these are lower skilled workers, or those who have little seniority. But more senior or higher skilled workers who now make $15 or more per hour will receive a maximum raise of 1 cool dollar. One estimate put the net loss to these workers at around $1.25/hr. (gain $1, lose $2.25) because they'll be losing bonuses and stock awards prior to the busy (profitable) holiday season.

I'm not arguing for lower wages here. I'm just pointing out (again) that when businesses react to government or PR pressure, there's almost always a fly in the soup.