Democracy At Work Is The Only Way To Stop Billionaires Like Bezos

originally posted by: notsure1
They only make 3 billion LMAO. But last year alone Bezos net worth went up almost 50 billion in a year.

But yeah keep believeing that bs they tell you about how they only made 3..

Public Thinks Avergage Profit Margin is 36% which is 5x's too high...

Amazon makes 3 cents in profit for every dollar the bring in... this is below average.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: lordcomac

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

However, the crux of the matter is that many large corporations are receiving indirect subsidies from federal, state and local taxes, through hiring workers below a living wage, knowing that supplimental income is available to keep the workers alive.

So the barely living workers continue to work, while having society look down upon them for being "welfare queens" or whatever is the term today. It is about 40 million Americans right now.

The advantage is that if you, as a taxpayer, shop at one of these corporations, you get lower prices. If you don't, then you subsidise other taxpayers (and everyone else who shops there) lower prices.

So, I think the idea is that if a worker at one of these places is getting taxpayer funded assistance to live, and costing the taxpaying public to fund this, then the burden of taxes should go to the corporation, not the taxpayer.

This would raise prices on direct goods, but the taxpayers were paying for the subsidies any way. So you were paying for something to begin with, you just could not directly see it.

Depending on how well we as voters can manage our government (not likely), we could reduce taxes to the taxpayer, or redirect the newly available funding programs needing resources.

There should be no such thing as welfare for employed people- period.
The moment you start collecting a paycheck from a job, you're paying taxes- not getting paid by them.

Allowing that sort of nonsense to happen in the first place is what got us to the point that huge corporations can get away with doing it on purpose.

Now, having said that... just like with so many other dumb things this country has done with laws in the past, there's no easy way to get rid of the mistake. If you cut welfare for those people, they starve. If you force the company to pay their employees, mass layoffs.

Either way the inflation marches on- the poor get pay increases for being poor, closing the gap on those of us with solid jobs and livable pay- bringing that poverty line ever closer to my door while funneling money directly into the hands of the super rich.

It'll collapse sooner or later- it was only designed to last a lifetime.

All I know it that the industrial park that I work in has "Help Wanted" signs all over the place and hardly anybody is applying for the jobs.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I posted facts.

You think his company should be stolen?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
All I know it that the industrial park that I work in has "Help Wanted" signs all over the place and hardly anybody is applying for the jobs.

Best I can figure, that's the way it is everywhere.

We've got homeless people at every corner in the city- and help wanted signs in every window.
Entry level jobs pay 12-14 an hour- but three to five years experience in the kinds of jobs you can get from having those entry level jobs pay... 12-14 an hour. After tax, full time, 14/hr take home is under 1600 a month in a place where rent starts around 1300.

There's tons of jobs... but unless you hot bunk your bed, working full time won't even pay the rent. Meanwhile this state spends 17% of its budget on straight up welfare- and 31% on "health care" which is openly just healthcare fore welfare recipients.
Half of my state taxes pay for the homeless- I'd hate to break down my federal taxes!

a reply to: lordcomac

If you cut welfare for those people, they starve. If you force the company to pay their employees, mass layoffs.

So our who economic system is broke?

a reply to: lordcomac

You're from California?

a reply to: JasonBillung

Yes. Yes, it is. COMPLETELY.
We NEED to move to a new economic system: The CoOperative Structure.
It's working for Mondragon in Spain, in 150 years they've risen to be the 7th Largest buisness in the country.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I think it is a case by case basis, depends on individual employees, management, their role, etc to be fair. I know I know that the stereotypical walmart employee is a thing, and often true.

But I have worked for Walmart as recently as this year. So let me share my personal anecdote providing some insight into this complex issue.

I worked on the 'CAP 2' team. Check r/walmart for reference. Our role? A few (3 including supervisor) show up at Noon to prep the backroom, and begin pulling pallets off the cold/wet grocery truck to the 'dancefloor.'

The rest of the team (8 guys on a horrible day, 18 guys on an optimal day) show up at 2pm. Half of the crew either starts stocking grocery on the sales floor, plus sorting clothing and pharmacy also health beauty accessories in the back room. All of that above stuff comes loose in reusable boxes called 'breakpacks' completely unsorted.

The other half of the crew (4 guys to 8 guys maximum on a great day) immediately begin to 'throw' the GM/dry grocery truck(s). Always 53' trailers. A small truck is 2000 'pieces.' A big truck is 4-5000 pieces. At my location, it was almost always 2 trucks. Average night was at least 5500+ pieces total JUST on the GM/dry grocery truck side of the store.

Now the details. The 'pieces' on these trucks are anything from a box of notebooks, a case of pickles, a window AC unit, to a damned living room couch. 90% of this freight is hand stacked, hand loaded, unpalletized. 100% of this freight is hand unloaded, sorted, and restacked on organized pallets or carts for grocery. On a belt, not an auto conveyor belt, a manual belt made up of thousands of metallic bearings. The freight is thrown onto the line by 2 guys inside the truck while the rest of the team works the line sorting and stacking.

Truck 1 must be done by 4 o clock. Truck 2 must be empty and swept clean by 6 o clock. Take lunch. Return from lunch and it is time to 'pull' the freight to the sales floor. This is the annoying time when you go into a Walmart and there are just giant wrapped unsafe pallets absolutely everywhere blocking everything. All the freight is pulled to the sales floor including dry/wet grocery, general merchandise, pharmacy, hba, oh and pets. (literally hundreds of 25-50lb bags of dog food, cat food, and litter every single day.)

After this is done? Cap 2 was responsible for having ALL of the grocery AT LEAST to be stocked on the shelves by quitting time at 11pm. But then overnight management comes in and complains if pets, paper goods, HBA, and chemicals are not also stocked and done with already by the time they get there at 10pm.

My point is, it was back breaking work. Pulling dozens of thousand pound pallets full of freight, after unloading and stacking them, and then stocking all of that # after that. Manual pallet jacks and massive grocery carts loaded to absolute max.

CAP 2 is the hardest working team in Walmart and the most # on. What did we get paid? 11$ an hour after the recent bump. What did the door greeters who mark your receipt on the way out get paid? 12$ an hour. IDK why. No 1$ raises after completing their training program either, they eliminated that.

No set days schedule, 32 hours a week if you are average, 40 hours a week if the supervisor likes you.

Here's another issue. I recently moved from Alabama. Minimum wage in Alabama? 7.25 an hour. 11$ an hour seems pretty good! Cost of living is cheap down there! Minimum wage in Colorado? 10.25$ an hour. Cost of living is high. 11$ an hour is suddenly not #.

Why is this deplorable? Well my walmart location, was not only the highest volume store in the state. We were the highest volume store in the entire REGION of the country! When I left, sales were sitting at 109%. 109 percent! That is insane growth! Over 280 million dollars in sales in 2017. That is just shy of 1 million dollars a day in sales.

And yet you've got 8 employees in the back of the store being paid just over minimumvwage to unload, sort, stack, pull, downstack, and finally stock ALL of the merchandise. AKA all of the sales money baby.

No paid vacation accrues until 90 days. Our store was performing great so we DID get a 'myshare bonus' of about 500$ but only if you've been there 6 months minimum. But they also held that bonus over our heads. Drop a jar of pickles? That is coming out of your myshare, friend!

Needless to say, I quit. Found a better job as many would tell me to do. But guess what? Somebody has to be back there doing that slave work, if they all quit at once, society in America would literally crumble in days if freight suddenly stopped hitting the walmart shelves.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Where did I say that? At the same time do you think a company valued at a trillion dollars should be forcing the US taxpayers to pay for their employees' survival with no recompense?

You probably got slammed with 100 right wing talking points right out of the gates but that is GREAT legislation

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The right wingers are blindly following their narrative.

This is fantastic. Stop subsidizing them through tax payer money by adding a direct tax thats valued at what it cost tax payers to subsidize their employees.

Done. Awesome.

Take your narratives and get a grip people.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: lordcomac

If you cut welfare for those people, they starve. If you force the company to pay their employees, mass layoffs.

So our who economic system is broke?

Not only is the entire economic system broken to the point that it should have been tossed out fifty years ago...

the money itself is a scam. Has been from day one. A century later and it has done its job- it has stolen everything from everyone. Now it will spiral into collapse, leaving nobody with anything. It all belongs to the banks now.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Where did I say that? At the same time do you think a company valued at a trillion dollars should be forcing the US taxpayers to pay for their employees' survival with no recompense?

Math can go a long way in helping you think logically.

Amazon has about 566,000 employees. Vast majority are working in warehouses. About 40,000 are high wage corporate employees (Make on average about $100k). So that leaves us about 525,000 ware house worker who make on average $13/hr according to articles I've read.

Amazon makes a profit of about $3 billion on $117 billion in revenue. In other words, 3 cents on the dollar is profit. If you buy something from Amazon and it cost $100.00, only $3.00 is profit.

Their are 40 hrs/week X 52 weeks = 2080 hours per employee if they work full time. If we were to raise the average warehouse worker from $13/hr to $16/hr... this would cost 2080/hrs x $3.00 x 525,000 employees = $3,276,000,000. In other words, Amazon would be losing money and no longer a profitable company. Remember, they only make $3 billion as it stands.

To recoup the $3 billion they are now losing due to increased wages, prices would have to increase somewhere. Keep in mind that if they could have increased prices to increase profits and not have it affect sales, they would have done it already even with their lower wages.

a reply to: Edumakated

Sure but if they plus every other company paid the tax so we didn't have to, then we'd have more money to spend on places like amazon, and due to the way they'd get taxed if they raised prices and thus standard of living they'd have no good reason to, so unlike raising minimum wage, you wouldn't have the inflation issue.

People get more money, people spend more money, extra money spent makes up for money lost, in the end everyone wins and all lives improve.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

Sure but if they plus every other company paid the tax so we didn't have to, then we'd have more money to spend on places like amazon, and due to the way they'd get taxed if they raised prices and thus standard of living they'd have no good reason to, so unlike raising minimum wage, you wouldn't have the inflation issue.

People get more money, people spend more money, extra money spent makes up for money lost, in the end everyone wins and all lives improve.

Companies don't really pay taxes. It gets passed on to you through higher prices or lower employment and wages at the company, so you are going to pay it regardless.

In the short term, it will seem like you are getting more money to spend, but what actually happens is prices increase and then you are now stuck in the same situation where instead of people complaining that $13/hr isn't enough, the $16hr/ isn't enough either because everything is more expensive.

People also forget that a $13/hr employee is already costing say $20/hr in actuality. The employee just sees the $13/hr not what the the employer is paying in other benefits and regulatory costs to keep them on the payroll.

a reply to: Edumakated

Do you think that you will get through to him?

Despite being a "go-to" for society, I'm not sure throwing money at the problem solves much of anything. In many cases, it even ends up exacerbating the original problem.

Really, we only frame most things in either "more money" or "less money." While problematic, I don't think that is going to change any time soon.

We should be looking at everything from core, foundational systems to how we can get currency to work better for us. Meeting needs like food directly and with self-sufficiency in mind would have a plethora of benefits, not the least being rendering the "living wage" conversation entirely moot. This course may not have been entirely feasible even as recently as a decade ago, but it becomes moreso every year.

a reply to: Edumakated

You don't get it, due to the way government welfare works, that would just result in them getting taxed more. Every cent they tried to pass to us, would end being taxed back to them. It would reverse the situation we currently have. They would be responsible for the welfare cost of all their employees, and as cost of living rises so to will the cost of welfare. Creating an infinite cycle where the more they try to compensate by raising prices the more they lose. It will become pointless for them to try and recoup cost by increasing prices and instead have to rely on trying to sell more product instead.

a reply to: Puppylove

You don't get it. All costs are borne by the consumer. The product or service is what generates revenue. Profit is what is left after all of the costs are taken out of revenue. Taxes are a cost. Say I want a 10% profit. I add up all of my costs and divide that by the amount of product that I produce. That is my break even point. I then add 10% to my break even point and that's my selling price. If you increase my costs, I just re-figure it and change my selling price. Gas stations do this every time they get a new load of fuel, that's why the prices keep going up or down.