Ok. So you admit that it's not a subsidy to businesses then and you're just using that word as an inflammatory talking point?
> It's just a big spreadsheet, you're arguing over a cell or two, I'm arguing over the function result and working backwards from there.
The problem is that if you're making wrong observations about these individual cells, you're going to write bad functions trying to wrangle them into the result you want. An example of this is the San Francisco blamed "greedy businesses" on their housing crisis, so they passed a ballot initiative that would raise hundreds of millions in taxes on businesses that they could spend housing. The problem is that housing problem was caused by NIMBYism all along, and despite spending billions of dollars on homelessness since then, their housing crisis only gotten worse and businesses are refusing return to SF even more than other cities.
I think this goes to highlight why capital is winning over labor. Shareholders will do whatever it takes to make money without being blinded by ideology. Amazon investors realize that they would actually benefit from an America with higher labor costs because they are more automated their their competitors and are positioned to capture market share in such an environment. Meanwhile, most regular people are apathetic towards politics and those who care are too committed to their ideology to make good decisions.
No, I still assert government subsidies to people employed below a living wage are corporate subsidies. I am referring to citizens needing a social safety net who do not have an employer, children, or the elderly (social security, medicare, medicaid, wic, snap, section 8 housing, to name a few but not all encompassing).
They fight unions awfully hard for an org proclaiming to want better wages and working conditions for their workers. Amazon wants both the positive PR while maintaining unilateral control over workers.
My talking points aren't inflammatory, they are observations. If the observations are inflammatory, change the state being observed if you don't care for current state being inflammatory. "I don't like the truth" is not a rebuttal, and the truth is pretty terrible based on all available evidence.
> No, I still assert government subsidies to people employed below a living wage are corporate subsidies.
This is the first result with I look up the definition of a subsidy:
> A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
You never disagreed with the parent comment that if welfare got pulled, Amazon wages would stay just as low. In fact, states or countries with less welfare tend to have lower wages, so if it's the opposite of a subsidy for Amazon. Therefore, welfare isn't a corporate subsidy. QED.
The vast majority of the world can and does live with off of less than $17/hour and healthcare benefits, which is what Amazon pays for entry level roles these days. Even in the US, that's enough for a single person without children. If Amazon only hired only these people, would that relieve their burden of having to pay a "living wage" to people?
Ok. So you admit that it's not a subsidy to businesses then and you're just using that word as an inflammatory talking point?
> It's just a big spreadsheet, you're arguing over a cell or two, I'm arguing over the function result and working backwards from there.
The problem is that if you're making wrong observations about these individual cells, you're going to write bad functions trying to wrangle them into the result you want. An example of this is the San Francisco blamed "greedy businesses" on their housing crisis, so they passed a ballot initiative that would raise hundreds of millions in taxes on businesses that they could spend housing. The problem is that housing problem was caused by NIMBYism all along, and despite spending billions of dollars on homelessness since then, their housing crisis only gotten worse and businesses are refusing return to SF even more than other cities.
> Force corporations to raise wages
Do you realize that this is exactly what Amazon wants? https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/economy/15-minimum-wage
I think this goes to highlight why capital is winning over labor. Shareholders will do whatever it takes to make money without being blinded by ideology. Amazon investors realize that they would actually benefit from an America with higher labor costs because they are more automated their their competitors and are positioned to capture market share in such an environment. Meanwhile, most regular people are apathetic towards politics and those who care are too committed to their ideology to make good decisions.