Liberals should stop attacking Bernie Sanders for targeting Jeff Bezos and Amazon. He's on the right

[Uncle Joe]

track

(snip)

One would think that Democrats and progressives would praise Sanders for this legislative initiative. After all, Amazon’s employment of low-wage workers, its baleful influence on communities and the punishing working conditions in the warehouses from which its merchandise is shipped to customers have been amply documented. Instead, they’ve turned their fire hoses full-blast on Sanders himself. The drawbacks of his proposal have been picked apart to a fare-thee-well by some of the nation’s leading progressive think tanks, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

(snip)

A similar fate has befallen the proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to require most public companies to obtain a federal charter requiring them to turn over 40% of their board seats to employees, among other provisions aimed at directing managements to pay more attention to the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders.

(snip)

(Amazon said its total employment reached 566,000 last year, but didn’t break out its warehouse workforce. If we assume for the purposes of argument that it employs 100,000 on those low wage jobs, Bezos could gift every one with $100,000, and it would only cost him $10 billion, and he’d still have $150 billion left over.)

The truth is that proposals like Sanders and Khanna’s serve a very clear purpose in our political system. They’re not designed to end up as the law of the land, but as prompts for debate. “These sorts of efforts serve a role in bringing these issues to the fore,” Jacobs says.

Now, if only their critics would stop focusing on the trees, and pay attention to the forest.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-sanders-bezos-20180911-story.html#

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Yeah, no shit!

[Gothmog]

8. The controversy over Bernie Sanders's proposed Stop BEZOS Act, explained

Sanders proposal makes no sense https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/11/17831970/stop-bezos-bernie-sanders

Taken literally, Bernie’s bill is unworkable nonsense
The main provision of the Stop BEZOS Act (an acronym for “Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies”) is an attempt to get big companies to raise worker pay. It would impose a tax on any company with more than 500 employees whose workers draw means-tested social assistance benefits — Medicare, food stamps, housing aid, etc. — of $1 for every $1 worth of benefits the workers receive.

But if implemented, it wouldn’t work because of how benefits payments are structured. Instead, it would create a lot of perverse incentives, due to the way benefits eligibility works.

The implicit presumption of Sanders’s proposal is that paying a low-wage worker an extra dollar would result in a dollar less of benefits usage and thus a dollar less of tax burden. Therefore, it would make sense for companies to respond to the bill by paying up.

But in the real world, the programs in question are structured to mostly ensure that $1 in extra earnings does not reduce your benefits by a full dollar. After all, if benefits were fully crowded out, then the programs would massively disincentive working.

This is a sort of a boring technical point, but it’s important: While raising the minimum wage would force employers to pay their low-wage workers more, under the Stop BEZOS Act it would still be cheaper to pay the tax than to hand out raises.

But it gets worse. The proposal conceptualizes low wages as the sole driver of benefits eligibility, but that’s not the case. Benefits eligibility is determined at the level of household income versus household size, which is related to but quite different from hourly wages.

Bernie is making a poorly thought out proposal. Are we to ignore the fact that these proposals make no sense in the real world?

[bettyellen]

2. His proposal would lead workers getting aid to get fired.

Jeeze it’s not brain surgery to recognize we’re not in a place where these workers have any protections.
And piling on Bezos becasue Trump is? It’s more kissing mid western ass at the expense of the working poor.

[tymorial]

3. I absolutely agree.

Employee protection must be included in these legislative efforts.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Bernie was piling on massive wealth inequality years

before Trump boasted about the height of his building (being the tallest which it wasn't) immediately after 9/11, Bezos is just the most extreme example of rampant greed tearing the nation apart which in turn actually led to the rise of Trump.

Bernie's proposed policies can't be taken in a binary vacuum either as the the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and others did.

Did you read the OP?

[bahrbearian]

11. I read "Bernie Sander's" that's all that is needed

Arrgulbuztuz*!! LOL

[Uncle Joe]

16. That's what I thought. n/t

[bettyellen]

23. It's not a bill worth passing as it hurts the workers more than anyone. You want to raise taxes?

Last edited Tue Sep 11, 2018, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Have the guts to say so- stop the pussyfooting around and be for raising taxes on all businesses.

[Uncle Joe]

31. How about taking your gaze away from a knothole in a tree and view the entire forest?

There is nothing "pussyfooting" about Bernie's bill, it's quite clear whether you agree it or not.

[still_one]

18. More likely it would increase the chances of moving people from full time status to part time status

and with that classification, employers do not have to offer those employees health insurance benefits

[recentevents]

37. Employers don't have to offer health insurance with full time employment either

I wish people would stop with the part time/full time argument with healthcare. Full time employment does not guarantee benefits. I work full time and the company I work for offers NO benefits. And before anybody gives the argument about contractors, I'm not. I'm an employee.

[still_one]

41. The ACA REQUIRES employees with OVER 50 FULL TIME EMPLOYEES TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR PAY A

PENALTY

Does your company employ over 50 people?

If yes, then they are paying a penalty.

It is referred to as the employer mandate. Employers with less than 50 FTE employees are not subject to these tax penalties for not offering health insurance coverage, although if your employer does provide health insurance they might be eligible for tax credits if they have less than 50 FTE

https://www.kff.org/infographic/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act/

Of course, thanks to some of those self-identified progressive who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, by either voting third party or not voting, and depending on the MIDTERMS, who knows what will happen

[recentevents]

47. Still doesn't matter if you're full time or part time

I'd like to address the 2 different parts of your response.

1) Employers not offering health insurance even with full time employment- A whole lot of people are employed by companies that don't offer health insurance. Whether they have to pay a penalty or not, they still don't offer health insurance to full time employees. That leaves those people with difficult choices. For me personally it means not having insurance. Which is why I'm a strong supporter of universal healthcare.

2)If the election had gone the way we wished it had, I still wouldn't have insurance. So, there's that.

[still_one]

48. Yes, if the companies employee LESS THAN 50 people they don't have to offer insurance, but they can

still buy insurance through the ACA, and if they fit within the income limits they would get a subsidy, or qualify for Medicaid. If you qualify for expanded Medicaid, but the state you live in refused to expand it because of the SC ruling, there is nothing you can do about that except get enough people in that state to vote those people out who refused to expand Medicaid.

For those those people who make low wages they would qualify for the subsidy under the ACA.

The ACA allowed people with Pre-existing conditions not only to get insurance, but not be penalized for it.

"You say if the election had gone the way we wished you still wouldn't have insurance." If the premiums were too high or you couldn't afford them, and you didn't qualify for a subsidy, then yes, that would have left you out.


However, the ACA was getting the foot in the door, and in fact millions who did not have insurance before did get insurance. Were some left out, yes, but at the time the votes weren't there for Medicare for all, or a public option, and there was a very small window to get something or have nothing at all.


Unfortunately, in 2010 Democrats did NOT have control of Congress so getting that "foot in the door" could not go much further, and at the same time the republicans and others were doing their damnedst to whittle it down, and Sabotage it, and depending what happens in the midterms it looks like they will get their opportunity. That is also another reason why the premiums remained so high, especially in states that refused to support it, because the whole point that would have made the rates go down was the individual mandate, but that is pretty much history, and the best we can hope for at this stage is at least winning one of the Houses in the midterms, and hoping to keep things from getting worse.


I am not optomistic at all if the SC puts in Kavanaugh

[recentevents]

49. well, now that you've told me everything I already know

It still goes without saying, the argument of moving employees from full time to part time status means nothing to a very large group of our population when it comes to healthcare benefits. Also, there are companies who offer benefits to part time employees.
Again, for a large group of Americans benefits are not tied to full time or part time employment. It's an argument that needs to stop.

[still_one]

50. You did not answer any of my questions so I don't think there is anything

further to engage in with you, including the fact that millions are insured because of the ACA

You believe my argument has no merit that companies with more than 50 employees either offer full time employees healthcare benefits, the employer mandate, or pay a penalty as incentive, that is your view.! There is a reason they use the term full time as part of the employer mandate, because they mean full time or they pay a penalty. You say there are exceptions, yes their are exceptions, but most things do have exceptions, including Medicare

but enough of this, I sure don’t want to patronize you with what you already know

Have a good day

[recentevents]

55. No, you've moved on from your original argument

You originally said the OP would have companies moving employees from full time to part time.
My argument is for a very large portion of employees it doesn't matter, they still don't get benefits under full time employment.
This isn't about the ACA, this is about arguing full time vs. part time status and employment benefits.

[PatrickforO]

4. I loved Warren's proposal. Sanders' had some merit as well.

We've got to expand fiduciary responsibility in corporate charters beyond shareholders to workers, consumers and the environment itself.

Sure, the Wall Street greedheads will fight that tooth and nail, but it's time those we elect to take care of our interests actually begin doing so.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I agree on all counts PatrickforO the point of their proposals was move the debate

in the right direction.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Like both proposals too... they would make an awesome team!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[DonViejo]

5. With all going on in this country right now

and the midterm election in 50+ days, it's really important we keep this "Bernie is a good guy/No, he's a bad guy" discussion going, isn't it?

[Uncle Joe]

10. With all going on in this country right now

and the midterm election in 50+ days, it's critical that we keep massive wealth inequality, Medicare for All, tuition free higher education and host of other important issues front and center in the nation's consciousness.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. THIS!! Spot on, as always, Uncle Joe!!

The progressive agenda is taking the country by storm and will give Democrats control of the House, maybe the Senate, in 2018, and, most certainly, the White House in 2020.

[DonViejo]

14. So, IOW, what aboutism works too. Got it...

Have a great night!

[Gothmog]

6. Taxing benefits use is a bad idea

Link to tweet

[Uncle Joe]

19. More from your link

(snip)

Democrats’ intraparty conflict is partially about ideas and partially about people and who governs them. Sanders and his camp, on a fundamental level, don’t trust the leaders of the Democratic Party or their aligned institutions. They instinctively see criticism as an effort by insiders to freeze him out, rather than a good-faith debate about priorities and proposals.

And the party establishment, conversely, is much more hostile to Sanders personally than they are to his specific ideas — alternately piling on heavily against flawed ones while eagerly co-opting others. And they really, really, really don’t want him to take over.

(snip)

To some left-of-center Americans, Trump’s rise to power illustrates the weakness of the conservative approach in which a no-guardrails and bullshit-soaked political culture left the party open to a takeover by a canny fraudster.

But to others, it suggests the party should stop playing the sucker’s game of treating electoral politics like an academic seminar where you need to acknowledge trade-offs, make your numbers add up, and defer to media fact-checkers.

Most Democrats would be saddened to see a signature proposal denounced by the CBPP and characterized by Vox as “unworkable nonsense.” Sanders almost certainly won’t care, and part of the core of his appeal is a sense that this is the correct and appropriate way to think about politics.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/11/17831970/stop-bezos-bernie-sanders

[Gothmog]

20. I live in the real world where plans should work

The fact that this plan will not work in the real world is not a good thing. Sanders has made a proposal that has no chance of passing without a magical voter revolution and would not work if adopted.

I am glad that you agree with VOX that this plan is not workable in the real world

[Uncle Joe]

26. FYI the real world IS Trump's and the Republicans' world and nothing that

Bernie or any other Democrat proposes will see the light of day.

I'm glad you agree with VOX as well.

But to others, it suggests the party should stop playing the sucker’s game of treating electoral politics like an academic seminar where you need to acknowledge trade-offs, make your numbers add up, and defer to media fact-checkers.

Most Democrats would be saddened to see a signature proposal denounced by the CBPP and characterized by Vox as “unworkable nonsense.” Sanders almost certainly won’t care, and part of the core of his appeal is a sense that this is the correct and appropriate way to think about politics.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/11/17831970/stop-bezos-bernie-sanders

[JHan]

28. I'm impressed you made sense of that because it's intellectual gymnastics.

[Gothmog]

43. Ignoring the fact that the article states that sanders policy is dumb will not change this fact

This bill is described as

Taken literally, Bernie’s bill is unworkable nonsense

I live in the real world and to my knowledge none of sanders proposals have ever been adopted. This policy is dumb and is unworkable and so will not be adopted either

[Oak2004]

57. Many, if not most, bills have serious issues as they are proposed

I'd hate to think of the kind of law we'd get if some of the bills I've been involved in would have been passed as originally written. Nearly every non-trivial bill has serious issues in its first iteration.

In the real world I've lived in, the first draft of a bill is a canvas, something that begins the creative process, not the final draft upon which there can only be a yes/no vote.

[JHan]

15. Sanders and his allies should stop attacking Liberals who make good faith arguments..

about the flaws in his proposals. His Policy Advisor smeared CBPP as being compromised by Walmart. This is a pattern.

It is not a good look.

If we really want to improve outcomes for people, we have to be concise. We have to demonstrate we're serious. Lots of people criticize working conditions in America, it's not a revolutionary thing to do. But if he's serious about improving people's lives, he has to come better than this.

Apparently, that's asking too much and is an attack.

Thou Shalt Not Criticize Anything Sanders Does.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Of course two million dollars in funding from John Boy should have no effect on a study but

the same study can be accurate and yet flawed at the same time because of binary thinking.

Hence a study is reputable and still manages to promote the benefactors point of view.

[JHan]

22. Thank you for proving my point.

We'll add CBPP to the long list of "People who are compromised"

because they point out flaws in his proposals or don't endorse him:

Urban Institute, CBPP, Planned Parenthood... there was another one and another one.. Oh and I guess now we can add Matthew Yglesias at Vox.

I guess Vox is owned by Walmart. Or something.

[Uncle Joe]

29. 1. I just stated that two million dollars should have no effect, why do you take issue with that?

2. I never said they were compromised just binary in their analysis or thinking.

Regarding VOX, did you read the whole article?

Here's how it concludes.

(snip)

But to others, it suggests the party should stop playing the sucker’s game of treating electoral politics like an academic seminar where you need to acknowledge trade-offs, make your numbers add up, and defer to media fact-checkers.

Most Democrats would be saddened to see a signature proposal denounced by the CBPP and characterized by Vox as “unworkable nonsense.” Sanders almost certainly won’t care, and part of the core of his appeal is a sense that this is the correct and appropriate way to think about politics.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/11/17831970/stop-bezos-bernie-sanders

[JHan]

30. And I replied how impressed I was at your ability to make sense of Yglesias' apologia at the end..

Because he went in hard and then had to cover his tracks by some "This is the appropriate way to think about politics" ( or rather this is how his fans will see it so ya know, ... ......) - when politics should be about problem-solving and coming up with sound solutions. It is not just a performance. It is delivering to people who you represent.

The conclusion of his article doesn't debunk his other sound points which, of course, you haven't addressed.

[Uncle Joe]

34. I agree with parts of the article but take it keeping the big picture in mind.

Nothing Bernie or any other Democratic Congressperson proposes will pass in this Congress, I believe we can agree on that.

I'm also acutely aware of Bernie's other proposals ie: Medicare for All, livable wages, tuition free higher education. etc. etc. and that they should be viewed in their entirety not piece meal.

That's the problem with too many analysis either being piece meal or using binary thinking as did the analysis by the Koch Brothers' funded Mercatus study regarding Bernie's Medicare for All proposal.

[JHan]

36. Many of us understand the big picture.

Sanders is not the first person to talk about corporations or corporate greed.

It's odd how you use "binary thinking" to describe detailed studies assessing legislation. Bernie used the Mercatus study as justification for M4All - then it wasn't "binary thinking" , until the author had to point out flaws in Bernie's assumptions about what he actually wrote.

You're also on a left center progressive forum ( for the most part) do you actually believe people here don't want good things? Why claim that anyone who raises concerns about Sanders' proposals is not grasping the "big picture"?

Edit: What's going to happen when Dem reps raise similar concerns, are they going to be accused of not "Grasping the big picture"? *looks through crystal ball* yup they will.

[TexasTowelie]

46. Tuition free college?

I posted an article about the repercussions of an increased minimum wage for universities in Minnesota last night. The universities admitted the truth about what will occur with that increase--the price of tuition will increase in order to pay for the students that work on campus:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10597089

The net result: Those that have on campus jobs will probably come out about even. The students without jobs will pay more in tuition and some may have to find employment because of the increase in costs or they may have to drop out of college. Even if those students find work either on campus or off campus, it means that they will be spending less time concentrating on their course work and it will be an impediment to the learning process.

The underlying fact is that an increase in the minimum wage hurts those that don't have jobs or those on fixed incomes because of the resulting inflation.

Yes, a few of the things that Bernie advocates for might improve my quality of life. However, I might be dead by the time the whole package of benefits trickle down to help me. I definitely know that tuition free higher education will never benefit me or anybody in my extended family which is why I see it as an additional expense that they can't afford.

[still_one]

17. Oh FFS. It isn't a question of attacking or not attacking. Bringing this up right before the

midterms is pretty ill advised.

The fact is, some jobs pay more than others. A software engineer makes more than someone working in the Warehouse.

The average salary for software engineers at Amazon is north of $100,000, according to data from PayScale, a salary comparison service. By comparison, a full-time warehouse associate at one of Amazon's fulfillment centers in New Jersey make $13.85 per hour, according to a current job posting, and in addition they provide healthcare benefits to their full time employees.

Should minimum wage be increased, absolutely, but that isn't because of Amazon, that is the politicians in Congress.

Bringing up this issue right serves what purpose? Do they really think the populace, (consumers), are going to rally around it?

Amazon has 310 million active customers. They also own Whole Foods, and are a huge employer. While Amazon isn't the only company singled out by this bill, (it includes any company over 500 employees), They decided to make Amazon the poster child for this.

The real problem that can be argued with Amazon is their monopolistic practices.

and for those who believe that this is a panacea, the element of unintended consequences should not be overlooked. There is nothing to stop any company from moving their employees from Full Time Status to part time status.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Massive wealth inequality helped give rise to Trump the fraudster in the first place so

I believe as do many others that keeping this critical issue front and center especially just before the mid-terms to be of paramount importance if Democrats wish to regain the Congress in November and the White House in 2020.

Democratic candidates can throw this issue in Trump's face, the problem is much bigger than Amazon and has been percolating for decades.

Amazon's works conditions in their warehouses are abysmal.

Exposed: Undercover Reporter at Amazon Warehouse Found Abusive Conditions & No Bathroom Breaks

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017510210

[George II]

25. I've asked this several times recently, still no answer from anyone.

If Sanders is so upset with Amazon, why does he continue to sell his books (and some other paraphernalia) on Amazon?

Wouldn't it make a positive and progressive statement to withdraw his books from Amazon and sell them through other outlets? Seems that would be a logical way to drum up support for his bill.

[chillfactor]

27. sorry but I am not a Sanders fan.....

I think he is a detriment to the Democratic Party.

[Uncle Joe]

32. I'm sorry that you feel that way chillfactor, I am a Bernie Sanders' supporter and truly believe

that he's long overdue medicine for the Democratic Party.

[George II]

39. And based on your OP, I see that you feel you should tell Liberals what they should do.

[lapucelle]

33. BS should take a principled stand and refuse to let Amazon sell his books. N/T

[Uncle Joe]

35. And what does that have to do with the OP, the way Amazon treats its' workers and the

issue of massive dysfunctional wealth inequality?

Using your logic, should Al Gore not fly in an airplane because the championed the issue of global warming climate change?

I heard that same crap from Republicans regarding Al.

[bahrbearian]

38. I am proud that you stand up to these few vocal champions of the status quo

" now is not the time" "standing up to Bezo's will only hurt workers" their arquments, are feeble may, as well be sending hopes and prayers, that Bezo's will play nice. "You know he owns the Washington Post and is part of the resistance don't you" don't be so hard on him. Over look the fact he is a Pentagon and CIA contractor.

[George II]

40. In case you didn't realize, Bezos is the CEO of Amazon.

Shouldn't Sanders take a stand and stop supporting Amazon?

BTW, your Al Gore analogy doesn't "fly"!

[lapucelle]

42. It would be a right second right step.

I don't think your analogy is on point. Al Gore does not directly market and distribute a product in order to earn profits by flying on airplanes.

[Oak2004]

58. Think your proposal through

How would such an act influence Amazon? Not at all. Bernie's book adds only an infinitesimal amount to Amazon's profits.

How would it affect the distribution of Bernie's book? Severely. Amazon has a near monopoly in the book trade.

This would not be a "principled stand", because it would not qualify as a "stand" (i.e., something that furthers one's principles). It would, however, qualify as self-sabotage.

That's assuming its even possible for Bernie to do this. The book trade does not work like this. Unless Bernie is his own publisher, he has zero control over his book's distribution. Even if is his own publisher, he still probably has little control where his book is sold.

[lapucelle]

59. Revolution is hard!

I'm not sure why anyone would say that a personal boycott would not advance the message. The term's of a book's distribution could be written into a contract. If BS has zero control, it's because he relinquished it when he cut his book deal. Similarly, he could choose to do direct marketing.

None of this is particularly easy, and it would certainly be less lucrative, but it would be a principled stand.

[Gothmog]

44. I trust Jared Bernstein's analysis of this bill

Link to tweet

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanders-rolls-out-bezos-act-that-would-tax-companies-for-welfare-their-employees-receive-2018-09-05?mod=mw_share_facebook

Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and previously Vice President Biden’s chief economist, said he had two concerns about the Sanders proposal.

One concern from Bernstein is that it “joins the right in vilifying benefit receipt.” Another is that employers would discriminate against hiring those who they think might trigger the tax.

[JHan]

45. Goldstein is another binary thinker I guess... getting to be a long list of "haterz" now.

Goldstein and Marketwatch are just out to get at Sanders I suppose.

[samnsara]

51. for me, its the messenger and not the message....im just not a fan of the man...

…..I just feel hes always angry (owning it.. thats just how I feel) so here I see in front of me..yet another angry old white guy. Now I do think hes got some great ideas and I fully support much of what he says...some of the time. Just cant get beyond him as the messenger.

[guillaumeb]

52. Yes, but Bernie has no (D) behind his name.

If he did, most of the criticism would evaporate.

Recommended.

If we do not change the terms of the debate, we will continue to lose seats at every level. Sanders and other progressives are fighting to change those terms.

[lapucelle]

53. BS should start by not allowing his products to be hawked, sold, and distributed by Amazon. N/T

[guillaumeb]

54. Ther are very few bookstores still open in many areas.

Part of the Amazon strategy.

[lapucelle]

56. BS should not participate in enabling that strategy then. N/T