• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie shows his ignorance with the BEZOS Act.

OscarLevant said:
In L.A, all basic jobs were $2 an hour in 69, only farms and remote towns were paying the fed minimum (farming had an even lower rate) . So, employment stats should be based on what unskilled labor were actually being paid, on the average, in a given area, and the reason is unemployment stats can only be realistic if we base it on what unskilled labor were actually being paid. I believe a livable wage is necessary because not all employees at this level are teenagers living with their parents.

Here's the deal, we could set the baseline at $12, but mandate adjusted rates in regions, but whatever that number is, it should be arrived at to the answer to the question "in this region, how much is required to live, at the minimum?" I would base it on, 1. Studio apartment, 2. Food & general expenses. 3, local transportation ( not saying enough to pay for a car ) and a modest amount of disposable income, including enough to pay for expenses at community college ( assuming they are low cost, like those in CA where many trades are taught, such as Xray tech, that sort of thing ) so that people at this level, if they were responsible and budgeted their money, they could increase their skills and move up the ladder to middle class, if they so desired. So, they should at least be able to move upward.

I would leave it for a panel of non-partisan economists to arrive at those numbers, and set the law to compell such regions to set a minimum wage in accordance with the law. I'm also assuming ACA works for these people, and all states have opted in ( ACA needs repairs, of course, or medicare for all or some variant of UHC ).
Click to expand...

What you propose (less any federal mandate to do so) is possible (and is being done) now - any state, county or city is free to establish a MW above that in federal labor law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What you propose (less any federal mandate to do so) is possible (and is being done) now - any state, county or city is free to establish a MW above that in federal labor law.
Click to expand...

They do that now but the Baseline should be higher than $7 this is the basic point
 
OscarLevant said:
They do that now but the Baseline should be higher than $7 this is the basic point
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that depends on your basis. IMHO, we should establish that basis and the use it to index (periodically adjust?) the federal MW. We use CPI inflation for that purpose with SS retirement benefits and periodically add a COLA - the same could (should?) easily be done for the federal MW.
 
OscarLevant said:
Exploitation of labor is a reality in this world.

It's not a complicated concept. But, apparently libertarians are unable to grasp it.
Click to expand...

You’re pivoting from what I said. “Exploitation of labor” is minimized by the level of welfare provision to the non-working.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You’re pivoting from what I said. “Exploitation of labor” is minimized by the level of welfare provision to the non-working.
Click to expand...

I do not see any logical connection between how corporations exploit workers at the lowest levels and Welfare
 
OscarLevant said:
I do not see any logical connection between how corporations exploit workers at the lowest levels and Welfare
Click to expand...

You are just blindly assuming and declaring that corporations exploit workers. Workers are exploited, exploited exploited exploited, they have to be. It must be the case. They can’t not not be. They have to be. Must be. Because they have to be. Exploited exploited exploited.

90 million Americans cannot be labor-exploited, because they DON’T SELL LABOR. They aren’t even in the labor force. Developed nations can and usually do provide for general welfare of citizens regardless of whether they sell labor, or how much labor they sell, or the price at which they sell it. In a lot of cases it is means tested, meaning that if a person decides to work enough and earn off money that they don’t need welfare, and then they don’t get it. But anyone who doesn’t work, or doesn’t work enough, or doesn’t make enough money when I do work, or some combination of that, they do qualify.

If our country doesn’t provide adequate enough welfare to keep the non-working from the brink of death, then that’s a problem with our paltry welfare provision. If we do provide adequate enough welfare that people who don’t work are doing OK and surviving, then that provision for the general welfare eliminates the potential for any workers to really be significantly exploited.

You seem to just be playing your ears and saying la la la corporations exploit workers corporations exploit workers la la la.

There is no realistic policy scenario in which all people who work are therefore disqualified from all public assistance. We cannot, cannot simply force all employers of all people to pay whatever amount it is that each and every particular person happens to need at the moment to be financially well off. Such fantasies would destroy labor markets or just be pathetically and laughably unenforceable. Unless we want to really destroy some poor people’s lives, we have to be willing to provide welfare to people with FEWER conditions on that provision, not more, including those who work a little.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
You are just blindly assuming and declaring that corporations exploit workers. Workers are exploited, exploited exploited exploited, they have to be. It must be the case. They can’t not not be. They have to be. Must be. Because they have to be. Exploited exploited exploited.

90 million Americans cannot be labor-exploited, because they DON’T SELL LABOR. They aren’t even in the labor force. Developed nations can and usually do provide for general welfare of citizens regardless of whether they sell labor, or how much labor they sell, or the price at which they sell it. In a lot of cases it is means tested, meaning that if a person decides to work enough and earn off money that they don’t need welfare, and then they don’t get it. But anyone who doesn’t work, or doesn’t work enough, or doesn’t make enough money when I do work, or some combination of that, they do qualify.

If our country doesn’t provide adequate enough welfare to keep the non-working from the brink of death, then that’s a problem with our paltry welfare provision. If we do provide adequate enough welfare that people who don’t work are doing OK and surviving, then that provision for the general welfare eliminates the potential for any workers to really be significantly exploited.

You seem to just be playing your ears and saying la la la corporations exploit workers corporations exploit workers la la la.

There is no realistic policy scenario in which all people who work are therefore disqualified from all public assistance. We cannot, cannot simply force all employers of all people to pay whatever amount it is that each and every particular person happens to need at the moment to be financially well off. Such fantasies would destroy labor markets or just be pathetically and laughably unenforceable. Unless we want to really destroy some poor people’s lives, we have to be willing to provide welfare to people with FEWER conditions on that provision, not more, including those who work a little.
Click to expand...


Exploitation is occurring, that is a fact.

I did not say 90 million are being exploited, no need to make stuff up I didn't say.

the vast majority of workers ( whatever the number is ) who are exploited are not seeking welfare as a back up plan.

I say all these things from there viewpoint as I have, in my life, been exploited, I speak from experience.

Welfare has NOTHING to do with this. Issues concerning welfare are a separate subject. People who lose their job can receive unemployment compensation, that is the usual course of action, so I'm not clear on why you are bring the subject up.
 
marke said:
Democrats like to think the government and small business owners have unlimited funds.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, Amazon is really hurting.

And I'm sure Trump's Trade war is doing wonders for the bottom line on many an American business as well.

lol
 
OscarLevant said:
Exploitation is occurring, that is a fact.

I did not say 90 million are being exploited, no need to make stuff up I didn't say.

the vast majority of workers ( whatever the number is ) who are exploited are not seeking welfare as a back up plan.

I say all these things from there viewpoint as I have, in my life, been exploited, I speak from experience.

Welfare has NOTHING to do with this. Issues concerning welfare are a separate subject. People who lose their job can receive unemployment compensation, that is the usual course of action, so I'm not clear on why you are bring the subject up.
Click to expand...

It's clear you're not clear, but what's not clear is why you aren't grasping the concept. I've explained it repeatedly. The more generous a society's welfare provision to its non-working, the less able any employer is to exploit labor. Employers have no leverage with which to exploit or coerce labor if people who simply choose not to work can lead comfortable lives. The less generous a society's welfare provision to its non-working, the more potential there is for exploitation of labor, because workers will put themselves through hellish labor conditions only when the conditions they endure for not working are even more hellish.

So if you're really that convinced American workers are being so horrendously exploited, it should signal to you that our provision to those who don't work must be very, very meager. People won't subject themselves to such heinous exploitation unless not working is even worse. So your primary focus should be promoting the expansion of the country's welfare provision to those with low and zero incomes.

For some reason though, the left wing does not really want to promote welfare, in fact they seem to have become disgusted with welfare, and what they want to do primarily is just vilify corporations and employers in general. The thought of improving people's lives is not satisfying anymore. They just want to vilify employers and force them to more highly compensate their employees. The non-working are not even on the left wing's radar, it seems. Very deranged turn of events, really.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's clear you're not clear, but what's not clear is why you aren't grasping the concept. I've explained it repeatedly. The more generous a society's welfare provision to its non-working, the less able any employer is to exploit labor. Employers have no leverage with which to exploit or coerce labor if people who simply choose not to work can lead comfortable lives. The less generous a society's welfare provision to its non-working, the more potential there is for exploitation of labor, because workers will put themselves through hellish labor conditions only when the conditions they endure for not working are even more hellish.

So if you're really that convinced American workers are being so horrendously exploited, it should signal to you that our provision to those who don't work must be very, very meager. People won't subject themselves to such heinous exploitation unless not working is even worse. So your primary focus should be promoting the expansion of the country's welfare provision to those with low and zero incomes.

For some reason though, the left wing does not really want to promote welfare, in fact they seem to have become disgusted with welfare, and what they want to do primarily is just vilify corporations and employers in general. The thought of improving people's lives is not satisfying anymore. They just want to vilify employers and force them to more highly compensate their employees. The non-working are not even on the left wing's radar, it seems. Very deranged turn of events, really.
Click to expand...



Complete nonsense. What's clear to me is that you haven't really thought this through. Have you ever tried to get welfare?

Well, my semi-handicapped brother did, and it was very difficult, took many months and when he finally got it, it was not enough to llive on,not by a long shot, it was way way below the poverty level. This idea that an employer is competing with welfare lest they pay their employees above a level that is exploitative is not only bizarre, it's absurd. Second reason is that welfare for a single person without a child, unless you are disabled, unless that person is a woman, is virtually impossible to get. Even if you could get it, it's not generous at all, its less than the exploitative wage, so how can it be competing with the employer to pay above a non - exploitative wage? So, perhaps you are thinking of unemployment? Well, you only get unemployment if you are fired, so the person isn't going to quit to get unemployment. Even if they could get it, unemployment is not generous, you are not getting a better deal with it, and it's always temporary.

Moreover, don't embellish what I wrote. Not all employees are being exploited, but some are, especially those that pay the federal minimum.
 
OscarLevant said:
Complete nonsense. What's clear to me is that you haven't really thought this through. Have you ever tried to get welfare?

Well, my semi-handicapped brother did, and it was very difficult, took many months and when he finally got it, it was not enough to llive on,not by a long shot
Click to expand...

Then our welfare provision for the non-working is insufficient to prevent worker exploitation. That's a symptom of an inadequate welfare system.

This idea that an employer is competing with welfare lest they pay their employees above a level that is exploitative is not only bizarre, it's absurd.
Click to expand...

It's not at all absurd. If people can get their needs met adequately without working, then it's not appealing to them to work under exploitative conditions.

Second reason is that welfare for a single person without a child, unless you are disabled, unless that person is a woman, is virtually impossible to get.
Click to expand...

More indication that grossly inadequate welfare provision is the problem here. If our welfare system has arbitrary and unnecessary rules and exclusions, then that is a problem with our welfare programs.

Even if you could get it, it's not generous at all, its less than the exploitative wage, so how can it be competing with the employer to pay above a non - exploitative wage?
Click to expand...

I didn't say employers are "competing with welfare," but if needs are adequately met by public assistance programs, then the incentive to work under conditions you call "exploitative" drops to nothing. There is no reason to put oneself through hellish labor if the compensation doesn't make the person noticeably better off.

So, perhaps you are thinking of unemployment? Well, you only get unemployment if you are fired, so the person isn't going to quit to get unemployment. Even if they could get it, unemployment is not generous, you are not getting a better deal with it, and it's always temporary.
Click to expand...

You are providing overwhelming evidence that all of this ties back to our country's grossly inadequate welfare provision to those who don't work (or work very little).

Moreover, don't embellish what I wrote. Not all employees are being exploited, but some are, especially those that pay the federal minimum.
Click to expand...

I'm not embellishing anything. You've argued low wage work is exploitative/abusive, but have gone on to also argue that welfare provision is considerably worse than that, worse than the hellish exploitative labor conditions. If our welfare system is that bad, so bad that it makes non-working people's lives that atrocious, then it would seem we should start with our welfare system. Minimum wage is not the rising tide that lifts all boats, because there are still close to 100 million Americans who work very very little or not at all. If you start at the bottom and try to rise the tide, that means starting with welfare provision to the people who wouldn't even benefit from labor wage and benefit mandates.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I didn't say employers are "competing with welfare," but if needs are adequately met by public assistance programs, then the incentive to work under conditions you call "exploitative" drops to nothing. There is no reason to put oneself through hellish labor if the compensation doesn't make the person noticeably better off.
Click to expand...


In the 90s, welfare was reformed to give welfare recipients, if possible, an incentive to return to work.
Study the program, it should answer your issues ( though the program is controversial )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act


That being said, the vast majority of people who find themselves unemployed are not even considering applying for welfare, it has a stigma for most people and applying for it is such a hassle, they are not considering it even when facing threats of firing over wages, it's a non issue and your point is wrong.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
In the 90s, welfare was reformed to give welfare recipients, if possible, an incentive to return to work.
Study the program, it should answer your issues ( though the program is controversial )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

That being said, the vast majority of people who find themselves unemployed are not even considering applying for welfare, it has a stigma for most people and applying for it is such a hassle, they are not considering it even when facing threats of firing over wages, it's a non issue and your point is wrong.
Click to expand...

You're not making a good argument for the root of all of this being employers' stinginess and exploitation. The more you complain about welfare being 1) overly bureaucratic, 2) inaccessible, 3) insufficiently generous, 4) not enough to live on, 5) negative/stigmatized... the more you feed into my point, which is that any progressive that genuinely supports a social safety net and wants to improve living conditions for the poorest Americans should obviously be targeting and criticizing our disastrous welfare policies, not large corporate employers.
 
Neomalthusian said:
You're not making a good argument for the root of all of this being employers' stinginess and exploitation. The more you complain about welfare being 1) overly bureaucratic, 2) inaccessible, 3) insufficiently generous, 4) not enough to live on, 5) negative/stigmatized... the more you feed into my point, which is that any progressive that genuinely supports a social safety net and wants to improve living conditions for the poorest Americans should obviously be targeting and criticizing our disastrous welfare policies, not large corporate employers.
Click to expand...

Now you have shifted the argument to that of the need for welfare reform.

You seem to believe that the existence of welfare diminishes corporate exploitation most assuredly it does not. And you seem to be arguing that if it doesn't it should be reformed so that it does. That doesn't make sense to me either. Though I do agree that welfare needs to be overhauled
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Now you have shifted the argument to that of the need for welfare reform.

You seem to believe that the existence of welfare diminishes corporate exploitation most assuredly it does not.
Click to expand...

I have explicitly stated it: the more generous a nation's welfare provision, the less of an ability there is to convince anyone to labor under harsh conditions. Only when a nation's welfare provision is abysmally inadequate, and the living conditions for the very poor super low, is laboring under exploitative conditions better by comparison. Why are people in India, for example, more than willing to work for, what is by our standards, ridiculously low compensation? Is it because employers in India are so much more ruthless than employers in the U.S.? No. Is it merely because of the statutory minimum wage in the U.S. is higher than India? No. It's because even the smallest amount of compensation in India can make a person significantly better off than this:

GTY_Poverty2_MEM_160118_12x5_1600.jpg


If the social conditions for the non-working are hellish, mind-bogglingly disturbing levels of rock bottom poverty, then people are naturally going to be more than willing to work for wages that seem abysmally low, because even low wages make these people vastly better off than no wages. But if the government/society can maintain social and living conditions that aren't this bad, and even people who don't work can lead survivable, OK (not great, but OK) lives, then there's no incentive for them to accept harsh labor conditions in exchange for very meager wages.

I've articulated this same point about 8 times now and each time you respond, you act as you they don't remotely understand what I'm saying. It's very strange.

I'm not "shifting the argument" to invoke welfare, I'm pointing out that if your broad-brushed accusations of employers as labor exploiters were true, it should beg the question why we don't push for better welfare provision.
 
Renae said:
BRILLIANT BERNIE strikes again. Why do people listen to him? He's a ****ing moron.
Click to expand...

Well, we have our answer ... because the wealthiest man in America was finally forced to get some 250,000 workers off the taxpayer dole by giving them a pay raise.
 
brothern said:
Well, we have our answer ... because the wealthiest man in America was finally forced to get some 250,000 workers off the taxpayer dole by giving them a pay raise.
Click to expand...

Which of course implies that they always COULD afford it, they just didn't do it out of simple greed. And yet the "conservatives" tell me that I should praise Bezos? Give me a break.
 
phattonez said:
Which of course implies that they always COULD afford it, they just didn't do it out of simple greed.
And yet the "conservatives" tell me that I should praise Bezos? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Amazon is a public company - we can see it's finances. Amazon had $20 billion in cash on its balance sheet, and a billion dollar cash flow last year.
 
brothern said:
Amazon is a public company - we can see it's finances. Amazon had $20 billion in cash on its balance sheet, and a billion dollar cash flow last year.
Click to expand...

Massive profits, and they all went straight to shareholders while the workers were on welfare. What a despicable situation, and what an awful practice Bezos was/is engaging in.
 
Renae said:
"Pay proper wages"?
The market sets the wages, whose forcing people to work for Amazon? Is there a law forcing people to take the jobs?
Click to expand...

Yes the market sets the wages and the market is imperfect. We discovered that 80 years ago and made changes. That's why we have regulations. Is there a law forcing people to start businesses? Pay your people well enough so they dont have to collect government benefits or go find a job yourself.

This may not be the answer, but neither is the notion that the market shouldn't be interfered with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom