Eat Shit Amazon?

[NATI BENGALS]

Thought about renewing prime when i saw the $15 an hour thing. Have heard a lot of horror stories from amazon employees. We have a prett big hub close to Cincinnati. Sounds a lot like the stories i used to hear about walmart shitting on their people while crushing mom and pops.

Gotta say the story i saw today about tax payers paying for a heli pad for the richest man in the world hurt my feelings.

What a joke.

Is this capitalism? Or is capitalism busted as hell?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Amazon can eat shit.



Goes to Amazon anyway to order a bunch of Christmas presents that will be delivered for free to family in a bunch of different states.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-15-2018, 12:42 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Thought about renewing prime when i saw the $15 an hour thing. Have heard a lot of horror stories from amazon employees. We have a prett big hub close to Cincinnati. Sounds a lot like the stories i used to hear about walmart shitting on their people while crushing mom and pops.

Gotta say the story i saw today about tax payers paying for a heli pad for the richest man in the world hurt my feelings.

What a joke.

Is this capitalism? Or is capitalism busted as hell? It’s

It’s capitalism in that cities competed to have them put up their new HQ or whatever it is and offered tax incentives.

I’m like Mr Leap. I bemoan them and then turn around and get a bunch of crap because it’s stupid easy.

[Belsnickel]

(11-15-2018, 12:42 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Is this capitalism? Or is capitalism busted as hell?

Capitalism is busted, but it's always been busted.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-15-2018, 08:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Capitalism is busted, but it's always been busted.

Always been busted compared to perfection?

[Belsnickel]

(11-15-2018, 08:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Always been busted compared to perfection?

It's always been busted compared to the concept of capitalism as defined. There has always been a need for government intervention of some sort.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-15-2018, 08:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's always been busted compared to the concept of capitalism as defined. There has always been a need for government intervention of some sort.

That doesn’t make it busted. That just means that as defined it doesnt produce the results we desire.

[Belsnickel]

(11-15-2018, 09:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That doesn’t make it busted. That just means that as defined it doesnt produce the results we desire.

It doesn't work in the real world. It's busted. To be fair, though, socialism doesn't work in the real world either. They need each other to fix their problems.

[Au165]

The citizens of New York and Virginian have a right to take it out on their elected officials who brokered these deals, that is how the whole democratic process works. As for how they treat their employees, those employees choose to work there. If they did not want to work there no one forced them to. There are plenty of small shitty companies who treat there employees like crap yet no one talks about because they are small. If they are following labor laws then that is on the employees not valuing themselves to leave.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-15-2018, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't work in the real world. It's busted. To be fair, though, socialism doesn't work in the real world either. They need each other to fix their problems.

I’m just sort of caught in the word busted. It’s basically a definition. It doesn’t produce the results we want in its purest form. Maybe unfeasible.

[Benton]

(11-15-2018, 09:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: The citizens of New York and Virginian have a right to take it out on their elected officials who brokered these deals, that is how the whole democratic process works. As for how they treat their employees, those employees choose to work there. If they did not want to work there no one forced them to. There are plenty of small shitty companies who treat there employees like crap yet no one talks about because they are small. If they are following labor laws then that is on the employees not valuing themselves to leave.

There's also the aspect that those employees don't work for one of the richest men in the world.

That facilitates a discussion on if tax payers should be providing social assistance so that a guy can become a billionaire.

[Au165]

(11-15-2018, 01:22 PM)Benton Wrote: There's also the aspect that those employees don't work for one of the richest men in the world.

That facilitates a discussion on if tax payers should be providing social assistance so that a guy can become a billionaire.

They work for someone richer than them who has made their money on them being treated like crap. Everything is relative, but in the end it is still the whole capitalism thing being discussed earlier in the thread. 

Again, the tax payer thing is pretty simple. The elected officials competed against other elected officials in a race to the bottom to bring them to their community. If the community doesn't like it vote them out. It's not social assistance it's bidding to bring them there. They don't have to setup shop in your area and so people are bidding with the best leverage they have being tax breaks to lure them there for the benefits having them provides to the community. The issue is when the officials get overzealous in bidding and they give away more than the company moving there gives them back.

[Griever]

As long as I still get paid time and half for all the overtime I get

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-15-2018, 09:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: The citizens of New York and Virginian have a right to take it out on their elected officials who brokered these deals, that is how the whole democratic process works. As for how they treat their employees, those employees choose to work there. If they did not want to work there no one forced them to. There are plenty of small shitty companies who treat there employees like crap yet no one talks about because they are small. If they are following labor laws then that is on the employees not valuing themselves to leave.

Sure. They chose.... Because most of the competition has been crushed. Thanks to tax loopholes that made online purchases cheaper. Businesses have shut down. And the type of people who for years have made a living in retail need a place to work. 

Monopoly needs to be redefined. Or clarified. Because tax payers including workers whose unions who have been crushed by the same politicians handing out billions to the richest people in the world will continue to be ass raped.

God damn joke

[Benton]

(11-16-2018, 12:14 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: . 

Monopoly needs to be redefined. Or clarified. Because tax payers including workers whose unions who have been crushed by the same politicians handing out billions to the richest people in the world will continue to be ass raped.

Mostly, it's just we don't have politicans willing to bust up monopolies. And the last few scotus justices -- while largely hailed as conservatives -- are unlikely to take the side of busting if anything comes their way.

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2018, 01:02 AM)Benton Wrote: Mostly, it's just we don't have politicans willing to bust up monopolies. And the last few scotus justices -- while largely hailed as conservatives -- are unlikely to take the side of busting if anything comes their way.

Well, that's because they are Federalist Society conservatives, which means they favor corporations over people because that is politically advantageous.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-16-2018, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, that's because they are Federalist Society conservatives, which means they favor corporations over people because that is politically advantageous.

Or they recognize people are free to do what they want, and right now they choose to buy a lot from Amazon because Amazon does it better than anyone else. But it’s nice that your new philosophy defines everyone and their motives.

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2018, 08:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Or they recognize people are free to do what they want, and right now they choose to buy a lot from Amazon because Amazon does it better than anyone else. But it’s nice that your new philosophy defines everyone and their motives.

The Federalist Society and the judges associated with them have pretty consistently ruled for the rights of corporations over the rights of individuals. That's all I was saying and it is seen in the court records.

Edit: I did say it was because of politics, which I didn't acknowledge here. I am assigning the motive because that was the motive for the foundation of the Federalist Society, to insert politics into the judiciary because they weren't getting their way.

[Au165]

(11-16-2018, 08:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Or they recognize people are free to do what they want, and right now they choose to buy a lot from Amazon because Amazon does it better than anyone else. But it’s nice that your new philosophy defines everyone and their motives.

People buy from Amazon because they are logistical savants. I think the Monopoly thing gets thrown around too much in terms of businesses that are simply far superior to all others. Even still there are Monopolies we allow to stand such as telecommunication ones that are used to gouge customers and those like Amazon (Although I still contend it's not a monopoly) that work in favor of the consumer. If a perceived Monopoly is improving the market for consumers then I really don't have an issue.

For example, years ago Google wanted to buy up the old analog frequencies and create a wireless communications company that would provide people free cell phone service. The catch was that the service would be funded through ads, meaning if you drove down the street while driving towards a McDonalds you may get a text about the McRibb being back. The FTC refused to allow it saying it would create a monopoly for Google, I however have continued to believe it was because lobbyist from large telecommunications companies knew it would crush their business. I think in a lot of cases as long as there are still alternatives, and they aren't colluding to price fix like telecommunications companies, they should be allowed to operate freely. I think in Amazon's case there are plenty of competitors they simply do not do what they do as well.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-16-2018, 10:01 AM)Au165 Wrote: People buy from Amazon because they are logistical savants. I think the Monopoly thing gets thrown around too much in terms of businesses that are simply far superior to all others. Even still there are Monopolies we allow to stand such as telecommunication ones that are used to gouge customers and those like Amazon (Although I still contend it's not a monopoly) that work in favor of the consumer. If a perceived Monopoly is improving the market for consumers then I really don't have an issue.

For example, years ago Google wanted to buy up the old analog frequencies and create a wireless communications company that would provide people free cell phone service. The catch was that the service would be funded through ads, meaning if you drove down the street while driving towards a McDonalds you may get a text about the McRibb being back. The FTC refused to allow it saying it would create a monopoly for Google, I however have continued to believe it was because lobbyist from large telecommunications companies knew it would crush their business. I think in a lot of cases as long as there are still alternatives, and they aren't colluding to price fix like telecommunications companies, they should be allowed to operate freely. I think in Amazon's case there are plenty of competitors they simply do not do what they do as well.

Yes I don't think businesses that are better at it than the rest are monopolies.  This Christmas I'm sure I will buy some stuff from Amazon, but i'll also buy stuff at the mall.  I enjoy the mall at Christmas.