SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DannyB chased by a bunch of wild rabid kangaroos writes . . .
Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill to tax Amazon for underpaying workers
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have introduced a bill that would tax companies like Amazon and Walmart for the cost of employees' food stamps and other public assistance. Sanders' Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act (abbreviated "Stop BEZOS") . . . would institute a 100 percent tax on government benefits that are granted to workers at large companies.
The bill's text characterizes this as a "corporate welfare tax," and it would apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8 housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits. The bill applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as independent contractors that are de facto company employees.
Sanders announced his plans for the proposal last month. He emphasized today that "this discussion is not just about Amazon and [Amazon CEO] Jeff Bezos." But as the bill's name would suggest, he's been particularly critical of Amazon and Bezos who became the richest person in the world (and modern history) last year. "The taxpayers in this country should not be subsidizing a guy who's worth $150 billion, whose wealth is increasing by $260 million every single day," [ . . . rest omitted . . . ]
Food stamps, School Lunch, Medicaid, great . . . but what about employees who must shop at Walmart?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 06 2018, @04:01AM (6 children)
Who would that be? And how does destroying the economy instill this particular lesson?
But let's suppose there is someone out there with an altar to the 'economy'. No skin off my teeth there.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 06 2018, @04:50AM (5 children)
Who... which part of my comment are you addressing here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 06 2018, @05:25AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 06 2018, @05:35AM (3 children)
I wrote "Keep increasing automation until people realize that economy is a mean, not an end" (in the last part I used the "worshiping economy as a God" metaphor).
So: your question of "who" refers to which of the three parts of my phrase?
Alternatively, rephrase your question in such a way that it doesn't contain "references" but the actual "values".
E.g. if indeed this is what you intended to ask, rephrase something along the line of "Who do you think takes economy as an end/a God?".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 07 2018, @03:04AM (2 children)
In your original post, you advocating inflicting harm on a society (apparently increasing automation at the expense of human labor as a previous poster complained) in order to instill "lessons" for people who "worship" economies.
Now, we're led to believe this is "metaphor". Ok, it still remains who are the people that this metaphor is supposed to fit?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 07 2018, @04:48PM (1 child)
Isn't the economy's goal to produce and distribute the resources in the most efficient way?
If the automation is the way to obtain higher efficiencies. how this could be "inflicting harm on a society"?
My point: taking economy as the goal (the "ultimate goal"="God") is a mistake. My opinion: .that's the lesson to be learnt.
Nobody? All? The Wall Street or London Financial District? Bezos? Uber?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 08 2018, @02:18AM
It's to meet the needs and wants of the participants of the economy. More efficiency tends to do that.
I believe there is a narrative of people becoming useless and starving to death or other marginalization.
For who is this a mistake? I disagree that this is true of everyone. For example, parties who are more closely tied to economic matters can be quite effective to the rest of society by obsessively improving their part of the economy. As I noted earlier, it's no skin off my teeth if say a central bank is obsessively focused on economic matters. That's their job.
Quite a spread there. I don't see any of those parties really being a problem by "worshiping" in the metaphorical sense the economy.