So, about that Amazon wage hike that Bernie is responsible for...

[SidDithers]

Link to tweet

Apparently the wage hike comes with a cut to benefits and bonuses that, in reality, are worth more than the pay increase. In other words, the raise to $15 is actually a pay cut. Some quick research verifies this:

https://www.wisn.com/article/amazon-employees-in-kenosha-unhappy-about-minimum-wage-raise/23574647

Link to tweet

The Hoarse Whisperer
‏

@HoarseWisperer
Following Following @HoarseWisperer
More The Hoarse Whisperer Retweeted one pissed off Polack
The minor problem with the vacuous grandstanding favored by a certain senator from Vermont:

When you try to shame a company by misrepresenting the total compensation it pays employees, sometimes they give you what you ask for... just to show what a simpleton you are.The Hoarse Whisperer added,

@1pissedPolack
Just to keep everyone updated on Amazon moving the minimum wage to $15/hr, they’re taking away our monthly bonus and stock we get on our anniversaries. It’s all just for show.

Sid

[NurseJackie]

1. Actually a pay CUT? Wow. That's very interesting.

Thanks for sharing this.

[SidDithers]

5. Looks like a left pocket / right pocket sort of thing...

Some employees will benefit. Others will lose out.

Amazon moves money from one pocket to the other.

Sid

[Power 2 the People]

9. Rejoice. Looks like that might not be true. The article includes a clarification from Amazon

Last paragraph of article:

Amazon released an updated statement to WISN 12 News on Wednesday afternoon saying, "The significant increase in hourly cash wages more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and RSUs. We can confirm that all hourly Operations and Customer Service employees will see an increase in their total compensation as a result of this announcement. In addition, because it’s no longer incentive-based, the compensation will be more immediate and predictable."

[mopinko]

15. even if it is a wash, it still isnt a big raise.

and nobody was making minimum wage, afaik.

[jcsg]

16. bummer

cut in benefits = cut in pay for sure.

[George II]

123. I sure as heck wouldn't be going around bragging about negotiating compensation cuts for workers.

[NurseJackie]

126. Neither would I. Best to vet things like this in advance.

But, well, I guess I'll just leave it at that for obvious reasons.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. K&R

[samnsara]

3. amazon is a PNW company and we are all going for 15$ an hr..they will be shamed by us...

...not Bernie...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

63. I tried to make that point the other day

But was told it was Saint Bernie who showed them the error of their ways.

[ehrnst]

98. Well, now a white man who doesn't work there has said it

it's his victory, isn't it?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/amazon-prime-day-2018-strike-deals-uk-sales-latest-a8441726.html

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-supreme-court-decision-amazon-worker-security-screening-case-clear-victory-employ


https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/28/being-homeless-is-better-than-working-for-amazon

[uponit7771]

4. So they cut other benefits and raised wages, damn

[CentralMass]

17. I'll find the link but the data showed that Amazon's average warehouse worker made

$12/hr and were paid bonuses and other compensation that average 9% of their base pay. So 9% of $12 is $1.08 or $13,08/hr. So the $15/hr is an effective raise of $1.82/hr even if they take away bonuses.

This is a different link.

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-gets-rid-of-pay-incentives-2018-10

"

RETAIL
Amazon got rid of bonuses as it raised wages, and that might be better for employees
Dennis Green Oct 3, 2018, 4:09 PM ET
Amazon
Getty/Rick T. WilkingMany of Amazon's fulfillment-center employees are getting a raise.
Amazon announced on Tuesday it would be increasing its pay to $15 an hour for all US employees.
As part of the overhaul, fulfillment-center workers' pay will no longer be tied to incentives targets.
Some employees have criticized the targets as unfair, with some adding that the targets cause intense pressure to meet goals.
A company spokesperson confirmed to Business Insider on Tuesday that fulfillment-center employees will still have metrics to meet, but they will no longer be tied to pay.
Amazon warehouse workers are getting a raise, but that's not all.

The e-commerce giant is not only raising wages to at $15 an hour for all US workers, it's also getting rid of a practice that many employees hated.

As part of the wage overhaul, Amazon says it is also phasing out pay incentives for fulfillment-center workers, eliminating the chance to earn bonuses and stock awards if certain goals are met.

"We are phasing out the incentive pay component and the $15 will be a simple minimum with no targets required," Amazon wrote in a blog post announcing the change.

The incentives have been criticized by employees as too strict, Business Insider's Shona Gosh reported earlier this year. Former employees said they would sometimes find human waste in trash cans because workers felt they could not take the time to go to the bathroom. Employees said that Amazon's focus on efficiency made them feel like "robots" that were only expected to do one thing, and to do it quickly.
The metrics are brutally aggressive, and most of my colleagues are in a state of constant anxiety that we could be fired at any moment for not meeting metrics," one current US employee told Business Insider."

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Not so fast. See post #6. Looks like their stock awards went poof as well.

[CentralMass]

25. Yes. Thst is in those numbers.

[joshcryer]

30. So can you find the link to your 9% number?

[CentralMass]

52. Here you go ( as was at work earlier)

https://money.cnn.com/2013/07/30/news/companies/amazon-warehouse-workers/index.html

"Amazon wouldn't say how much it pays its workers. But according to data gathered by career website Glassdoor.com, Amazon pays its 20,000 warehouse workers an average hourly wage of about $12, which is below the national average.

Spokeswoman Mary Osako said Glassdoor's numbers are closer to wages for entry-level workers.

She added that the figure also doesn't represent the Amazon worker's entire compensation. Its employees get full benefits and stock awards on top of their salaries. In the past five years, this has added an average of 9% to workers' base pay annually, Osako said

Another more recent link. "When factoring in bonuses and additional compensation, a Amazon Warehouse Worker at Amazon can expect to make an average total pay of $26,400 "
So in comparison, $15/hr for a 40hr week would be
$31,200/year

Https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Amazon-Warehouse-Worker-Hourly-Pay-E6036_D_KO7,30.htm

"Thanks for joining! Check your email to validate your account and begin your Basic Membership.

Cover Image for Amazon
Amazon Logo
Overview
Overview
27k
Reviews
19k
Jobs
38k
Salaries
18k
Inter­views
9.1k
Benefits
455
Photos
Amazon Amazon Warehouse Worker Hourly Pay
689 SalariesUpdated Sep 28, 2018

United States

Any Experience
Search
Avg Base Pay
$13
$9
$17
Avg Total Pay
$26K
Avg Additional Pay
$1,000
$1
$4K
Additional Pay
Range
Cash Bonus (80)
$1
-
$4K
Stock Bonus (43)
$1
-
$2K
Profit Sharing (13)
$3
-
$2K
Tips (2)
$24
-
$600
Commission Sharing has not been reported for this role
Related Searches: All Amazon Warehouse Worker Salaries | All Amazon Salaries
The typical Amazon Amazon Warehouse Worker salary is $12. Amazon Warehouse Worker salaries at Amazon can range from $9 - $17. This estimate is based upon 689 Amazon Amazon Warehouse Worker salary report(s) provided by employees or estimated based upon statistical methods. When factoring in bonuses and additional compensation, a Amazon Warehouse Worker at Amazon can expect to make an average total pay of $26,400 . See all Amazon Warehouse Worker salaries to learn how this stacks up in the market."
"

[George II]

62. Your sources contradict each other. On the one hand you say an worker earns....

...."an average total pay of $26,400", but your money.cnn.com source says an Amazon worker would "take home about $24,300 a year".

So it's either total pay or take home pay. But certainly Federal withholding, SS, etc. would be more than $2,100, so one of those numbers is incorrect. And that $26,400 or $24,300, whichever might be correct, doesn't include the monthly bonus or annual stock award. Even if the award is only one share, that's ~$2,000.

[CentralMass]

121. The 2018 numbers in the new link are worse then the 2013 numbers in the first link

From the 2018 article:
Average pay $12/hr. This would be $24,960/year. The article says ""When factoring in bonuses and additional compensation, a Amazon Warehouse Worker at Amazon can expect to make an average total pay of $26,400 "

So the non-base salary compensation is
$24,960/$26,400 × 100 = 6.1% of base pay. The 2013 link said that non base pay compensation was 9%.

So if Amazon did stripnon base pay compensation, the $15/hr ($31,200 annually) is still a $4800 raise over the old $12 base + non base compensation of $26,400.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

64. According to this article pay varied by location

Pay for warehouse workers at Amazon can vary by location. It was offering at least $12.25 an hour in Omaha, Nebraska, $13 in Baltimore and $16.50 in New York, according to recent job postings. The median pay for an Amazon employee last year was $28,446 worldwide, according to government filings, which includes full-time, part-time and temporary workers.

https://www.heraldnet.com/business/amazon-to-pay-minimum-15-per-hour-nationwide-350k-affected/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=bf5e28e9d1-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-bf5e28e9d1-228635337

[joshcryer]

68. Yeah, hike pay in some areas, remove bonuses in others.

Probably evens out in the end.

The productivity bonuses (which famously had a few people peeing in bottles) are a strong incentive.

Also, this probably won't stop that from happening, because now if people don't meet productivity metrics, just fire them. People will still wind up pissing in bottles...

[joshcryer]

67. I'm seeing long timers say they will lose $500/mo...

...during xmas rush. They were already making 14.75.

This is very clever.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. "IF"?

"As part of the wage overhaul, Amazon says it is also phasing out pay incentives for fulfillment-center workers, eliminating the chance to earn bonuses and stock awards if certain goals are met."

[George II]

46. They're losing their bonuses AND their annual stock award. For many they're losing more....

....than they're getting via the increase to $15 per hour.

[joshcryer]

69. I would hate to have been a long timer who was slated for another stock.

They got them every 2 years. What happens to the guy who was 1.5 years into his next stock? That's like taking away a thousand bucks. Same guy is probably pissed af that he's not getting his $500/mo bonuses, too, because he's a super hard worker.

This is bad. It's normalizing corporate labor relations to the idea that "all we do is pay you the minimum we can get away with." And because $15 is the bottom line we've set, we've compelled the corporation to do away with all incentives that they had for good workers.

[dawg day]

77. Well, probably the old-timers won't be at minimum wage--

They'll probably get a commensurate raise. Let's see how it falls out.

My granddad worked for an oil refinery, and they gave a few shares of stock every Xmas to every employee. He had about $800K of stock when he retired.

Of course, if the company had gone out of business, it would have all been worthless.

[George II]

104. Who knows, those benefits might be cut for all employees, not just those going up to $15 / hour.

[SidDithers]

6. ...

Sid

[R B Garr]

8. Wow! Such a deal.

Not.

Great catch, Sid. That Hoarse Whisperer had some sobering and unflattering words about this.

Thanks for posting.

[George II]

36. I mentioned this last night here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=513496

7. But what everyone seems to overlook is that Amazon has scaled back their version....

....of employee stock options/awards in conjunction with this announcement.

And this morning here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11225466

43. What say you about the fact that Amazon has restructured the stock award program....

...for employees who are getting their pay increased?

Amazon has implemented a shell game that everyone has fallen for. All they've done is reshuffle those workers' compensation.

They're magnanimously "increasing" hourly pay to $15, but at the same time reducing or eliminating benefits that probably wind up costing the employees more than they're getting as a pay "increase"!!!

And there's a politician crowing and taking credit for this development?

[bigtree]

145. we always favored wage increases over bonuses and other incentives like stock options

...both bonuses and stock options are subject to the accounting of the employer.

The bonuses offered (and in more recent years accepted in union negotiations) never matched the potential earnings from the higher wage, and it wasn't a secret that the employer favored those to keep wages down.

I'm pretty certain the logic and reality, in this case as well, favors the higher wage. In the long run, the worker's income isn't based on a 'gift' from the employer (which is almost halved by taxes, bonuses regarded by the IRS as a gift) but on the hours they work.

I worked under UFCW union contracts for 30 years.

[KayF]

7. Hillary called it a bold impressive step

Link to tweet

[Power 2 the People]

10. Way to go Hillary!

It certainly is an impressive step for the American worker.

[Autumn]

14. That should be an OP. There just aren't enough positive posts about our greatest

First Lady here on DU.

[sheshe2]

87. Autumn: "That should be an OP. "

"There just aren't enough positive posts about our greatest First Lady here on DU."

Your comment about Hillary as the "greatest First Lady" demeans all she has done. Wow. First Lady. You relegated her only accomplishment to her role as First Lady. You ignore all her accomplishments in her fight for equal rights for women. Their human rights. You ignore her fight for healthcare for all. You ignore her roll as SOS and you ignore the awesome campaign that she ran. You ignore all her warnings about trump being owned by Putin. You ignore that she in fact won the election in 2018. You ignore she won the popular vote. Your post is demeaning to our 2018 candidate and frankly has no place on Democratic Underground. By demeaning Hillary as First Lady, you are calling her a house wife apron and all.

I think you should delete. Your scorn and ridicule of this woman is obvious.

[brer cat]

93. +++

[Demit]

153. And you forgot that she was a US senator.

[ehrnst]

96. You mean Secretary Clinton. Your not so subtle dig is noted.

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2018, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)

[Autumn]

111. She was always my favorite First Lady. I was a big supporter in 08.

Fact is I was a host in her group, well before she became Secretary.

[ehrnst]

114. I guess that "red x" wasn't working.

Referring to her "First Lady Clinton" or "Mrs. Clinton" is what snide right wing news sources, or debate opponents would call her to discount that the correct title is Secretary Clinton.

Perhaps you don't remember or know about Bush 1 being patronizing in a 1984 debate where he called her "Mrs. Ferraro," rather than her correct title, Congresswoman Ferraro.

When you start referring to Barack Obama as "Representative Obama" or "Senator Obama," I'll believe that wasn't a dig, and your remark about supporting her "in 2008" wasn't either.

[Autumn]

115. Must I use all her titles just to make you happy?

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2018, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm lazy and I don't want to type that much so I don't think I will. I met her three times, 2 when she was First Lady, I have fond memories of her at that time. Believe what you want I don't care, I'm not here to please you or conform to your rules.

Edited to add about my decision to take you off ignore. I see no reason to add myself as a freebie to your jury blacklist by ignoring you as was kindly pointed out to me.

[betsuni]

117. "I'm lazy and I don't want to type that much so I don't think I will."

FABULOUS! Thanks for the laffs!

[ehrnst]

119. .....

Sometimes all you need to do is just hand them a shovel, and they do the work for you..

[Autumn]

122. Here's a post with a lot of typing Betsuni. You're welcome and enjoy the

laughs.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211228443#post97

[NurseJackie]

127. Oh dear! LOL! :-D

[lapucelle]

134. F-i-r-s-t - L-a-d-y: 9 characters + 1 space (two caps)

S-e-c-r-e-t-a-r-y: 9 characters + 0 spaces (one cap)

[ehrnst]

120. Thought so....

[George II]

125. I met Bill Clinton twice on his campaign when he was Governor. Should I refer to him as "Governor"?

[Autumn]

128. You can call him whatever you want, I won't insist that you add a title.

Even just calling him Bill Clinton is fine with me. I met him too.

[Revanchist]

173. Actually Secretary of State is a role, not a rank

Meaning there is only one at a time. Senator is a rank and you can use that after they leave office or you can use the term "The Honorable" but if you want to be correct you really shouldn't call her Secretary Clinton.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/Secretary_Cabinet_Member.html

[betsuni]

97. ...

[George II]

124. Has Hillary Clinton not done anything since January 20, 2001?

Your characterization is equivalent to referring to Barack Obama as "State Senator Barack Obama".

[Autumn]

130. Yes she has, truth is Hillary, IMO, is the only politician that has laid out

exactly why Brett Kavanah should not be on the SC in a concise manner, using indisputable facts and not emotion. The Dems should have paid attention to her and acted accordingly. Excellent OPs that didn't get the attention they deserved. Edited to add, I also consider Bill Clinton to be the greatest President of my lifetime.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/10142162897
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211224250

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. Well, that's umm, different.

[George II]

38. What's "umm, different" about it? You're laughing about something Hillary Clinton said that....

....earlier today you were praising another politician who said basically the same thing?

PS, why do you have two animated gifs in your signature depicting abuse of little girls by grown men?

[R B Garr]

44. +1, plus I don't see Hillary running around acting like a savior.

She's a true statesman/woman. That's what we need more of, not divisive grandstanding.

[kcr]

47. That triggered one is awful

Another one posted a similar one in another thread. No better than Trumpers.

[R B Garr]

54. Exactly, it's totally trollish. nt

[betsuni]

57. Especially right now.

Some people think "pissing off liberals" is a good use of their time.

[kcr]

59. So weird how two groups have that in common, huh? n/t

[betsuni]

60. Indeed!

[sheshe2]

75. I remember.

Bernie Sanders Grabbed the Bully Pulpit and Refused to Let Go Until Amazon Hiked Wages


www.democraticunderground.com/100211223001

[George II]

78. (and lowered benefits)....

...remember what they used to sarcastically say............."thanks XXXXX"?

[sheshe2]

82. ;)

[Hekate]

89. George II...

The gifs make me feel quite alert, if not downright triggered. But if I testify, do you think anyone will care?
Hmmmm.

[stonecutter357]

159. I'm shocked DU has not removed the two gifs .

[betsuni]

53. Sanders: Bezos is "doing exactly the right thing," he's giving credit where it's due. Is he wrong?

This isn't an impressive step?

[betsuni]

110. "Today, I want to give credit where credit is due."

Amazon's announcement "could well be a shot heard around the world." Bernie Sanders.

[JHan]

133. And by making it all about Sanders, it distracts from the bait and switch Amazon engaged in.

The focus is squarely on praising Bernie for this as if he worked Magic on Bezos.

And my concern and yours and others are being conflated with us having a problem with salary increases.

Let's be real, this was done so Bezos could get some good press and attract workers for the Christmas season ( and only official workers at Amazon get the salary increase)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. And kudos to Bernie?? Cue the crickets... chirp, chirp!!

[betsuni]

107. What are you talking about?

Bernie Sanders: "Bezos is doing exactly the right thing." "Today, I want to give credit where credit is due." Amazon's announcement "could well be a shot heard around the world."

[Bfd]

11. Wow! Guess he left that part out. Glad to see the truth being told.

Man, that's some rearranging of the deck chairs.
How do ya think Bezos got to be a billionaire!

I'll be taking my "Great Job & High Five" back now.
Thanks for nothin.

[Doremus]

19. Reply #17 nt

[George II]

39. I pointed out this shell game yesterday. They would gain more by playing a game of...

....three card Monte on a cardboard box in Times Square.

[Bfd]

55. I read earlier today, it was a strategic move since the competition for part time /seasonal &

permanent employees is high right now.

With this announcement, I see the strategic corporate angle being played simply to get ahead of the others. Target stores is named as a competitor in the article.
I'll post the link it if I can still locate it.

There's a bigger picture going on here & $15 is exciting but remember that with Corps the size of Amazon, they only give when the return is in their favor .

They didn't get to be in the global billionaire class without strategy in every move they make.
Curious as to what they gain with the new tax plan.
But I'm sure Amazon worked thru all theose details before this announcement

[sheshe2]

12. So most will lose more than the gain?

Has the Senator responded to this development?

[mcar]

13. SO's school district does this every year

Announces a salary increase, doesn't announce the benefit increase that is even larger.

[JHan]

18. That's interesting. I hope media houses pick up on this and examine it more closely.

[Doremus]

20. Reply #17 nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Reply #6 nt

[JI7]

23. this is why it's better to focus on legislation .

[ismnotwasm]

24. Amazon needs a fucking union

Unions get shit done.

[Sqee]

26. Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Tactics Revealed in Leaked 45-Minute Video

https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics-revealed-in-leake-1829305201

[Bfd]

27. Yes. Unionize

If Bezos really wanted to be the spectacular agent of change, he should ditch that paltry 1.80 & hr raise & Unionize his workers.
He'd never have to complete for workers again.
He'd stick a fork in overdone Trump too.

And he'd never miss the cash flow.
But that's an American dream.

[Mel]

28. Right on Agree

Yes, Amazon/Whole Foods need a Union!!!

[mountain grammy]

136. +1000

[Me.]

29. I Wondered What The Chink In The Armor Would Be

and when it would show up

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. Well CNBC is on the case. They always have the little guy's best interest in mind.

I’m sure the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Works can gin up a bunch of would be $11 dollar an hour Amazon stock millionaires.

[Me.]

40. Whether Or Not CNBC Is On It

a victory it isn't

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. Everyone got a raise and you mad? Get over it already.

[Me.]

43. I Guess You Didn't Read The Following....

"Apparently the wage hike comes with a cut to benefits and bonuses that, in reality, are worth more than the pay increase. In other words, the raise to $15 is actually a pay cut. Some quick research verifies this https://www.wisn.com/article/amazon-employees-in-kenosha-unhappy-about-minimum-wage-raise/23574647 …"

Some victory.

[sheshe2]

79. Raise then benefits cut is a zero raise.

[George II]

101. Looking at overall compensation, everyone did NOT get a raise, many had their compensation....

....reduced.

PS, why do you have two animated gifs in your signature depicting abuse of little girls by grown men?

[betsuni]

109. You "triggered" like your sig line?

[George II]

34. I've pointed this out countless times between yesterday and today. Yes, those with hourly pay....

....less than $15 will get that pay increased to $15 per hour. But at the same time the benefits that such employees are currently getting will be reduced, and I'm sure that in some cases employees will end up with LESS overall compensation than before the "raise" to $15 per hour.

It reminds me of a place I worked for 20+ years ago. On a Friday afternoon, about a dozen full-time permanent employees, some at the company for decades, were told they were being let go. BUT, at the same time they were told they would be "re-hired" starting the following Monday at the SAME position they had, but as "part-time temporary" employees - even though they would be working the same number of hours as their "full-time" positions.

The net result is that they would have the same job at the same hourly rate, but they would no longer have healthcare coverage, sick time, or paid vacation.

Same job, "same" pay, lower overall compensation.

[Cha]

35. KICK for The Hoarse Whisperer!

[NurseJackie]

45. Yes. Thank you!

[Cha]

51. ..

[melman]

37. Remember how

he supposedly had nothing to do with it? Totally, definitely. 100% nothing. Seems like that was just yesterday.


Now it's all him.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. Lol. I know, right? They'll settle on an attack plan sooner or later.

Until then. Spin spin spin

?itemid=4981777

[disillusioned73]

99. lol...

up is down & down is up...

[kcr]

50. Remember when Amazon was a shitty company that didn't care about their workers?

But suddenly they're all about doing the right thing

[JHan]

70. happened so quickly lol blink of an eye.

[melman]

71. They still are a shitty company

And Jeff Bezos is still a total asshole. Never said any different.

[George II]

72. Were you not one of those who claimed it was "all him"?

[melman]

73. Certainly not

[George II]

74. Oh?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11221898

1. Excellent

As I recall, Sen. Sanders caught a lot of flack from certain people over his comments on Amazon.

Perhaps this is (further) proof those people don't know what the eff they're talking about.

[betsuni]

76. ...

[sheshe2]

81. Oh!

[R B Garr]

84. Busted! I remember the deceptive wording of

that very post. Great catch.

[George II]

86. Indeed....

[NurseJackie]

105. Boom!

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. And...that development is Bernie's fault because.....?

But Hillary's praise of the raise is......what?


This irrational childish divisive hatefest on here has to stop.

[disillusioned73]

100. It will not...

it's what they are here to do.. it is why lot's of ppl have gone elsewhere for information and constructive dialog not continuous... this..

[Perseus]

49. Stop buying from Amazon

Most of the time you are buying from someone else and Amazon is making money from the referral.

Also, Wal-Mart online is cheaper most of the time. Compare Amazon prices and you will find they no longer provide good deals, they have become very expensive. I bought my son a drawing tablet a Wal-Mart because it was $30.00 cheaper than Amazon, and everything else is the same now.

They want to be jerks with their employees? Then hit them where it counts.

[George II]

80. Or.....stop SELLING on Amazon (i.e., books, coffee cups, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.)

[ZZenith]

88. Yeah, 'cuz Walmart treats their employees like kings and queens.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. I refuse to buy from Walmart too... or to serve on their Board of Directors.

[JI7]

90. Walmart is worse than amazon

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. MUCH worse... why no one with a progressive bone in their body should associate with Walmart

in any way, shape, or form.

[TexasTowelie]

56. Sanders would have workers believe that they can improve their conditions,

not through collective struggle, but through appeals to the magnanimity of billionaires like Bezos. Bezos was alarmed by the growing support for labor organizers which is why he made the decision to raise wages. Considering that Sanders and Bezos already have a relationship since Amazon sells Bernie's books, it looks like a coordinated event that results in positive publicity for both Bezos and Sanders while addressing worker demands and having minimal effect on profits.

[kcr]

58. Absolutely. It is beyond foolish to think that this is how change happens.

Claiming that his bill had anything to do with this undermines the workers who are fighting to organize. Not to mention completely ignoring the minimum wage movement that's long been going on that has already had the effect of pushing legislation. His bill was widely and roundly criticized and likely had little to do with Amazon's move, but of course Amazon won't eschew his praise and will happily let him take the credit. It makes them look good! Way to go, Bernie.

[betsuni]

61. +1

[George II]

65. +1,000,000

[R B Garr]

85. Well said!

[JCanete]

91. According to what would he have you believe that? Where did you pull that from? And that

is not a relationship. Amazon is a platform. Good god, this is a tired ass line that somehow Sanders selling on Amazon means anything at all. Amazon is huge...it has massive reach and is large enough that you don't sell on it at the peril of your product.

Those are incredibly flimsy connections you've drawn a ridiculously spurious conclusion from, and I hope you know that.

[TexasTowelie]

92. Thank you for admitting it, JCanete.

Bernie is concerned about the peril of the product that he is trying to sell. Your comment about a flimsy connection is irrelevant once that admission is made.

[JCanete]

135. That's not at all what I said, and if you want to reach people you have to use the outlets available

to you...you can't go off into the forest and yell at the trees. Please be less disingenuous with your arguments.

[TexasTowelie]

142. I find it amusing that what I said in the post that started this subthread came true again today.

Bernie begged another CEO to be magnanimous to his employees. It will be interesting to see how/if the CEO of McDonald's responds to the letter that Bernie sent today.

The employees at McDonald's don't receive the same type of benefits and I suspect that they are farther away from earning $15 per hour than those at Amazon so it will be nearly impossible to shuffle finances around at McDonald's to get to a $15 an hour wage compared to the changes that Amazon will be making.

The main problem that I see with sharp increases in the minimum wage is that it hurts the vulnerable that have limited or no income more than any other groups. Since I'm in that boat, it means that instead of going out a couple times a month for a meal, then I'll have to cut elsewhere as prices inevitably rise. I have a college degree, a great deal of computer knowledge and over 25 years experience, but I'm in the situation where I'm applying for jobs that are paying $13-$15 an hour which is what Bernie wants to see an entry level employee paid. Bernie's proposals have the potential of causing me great harm without providing any relief which is why I can't get behind him.

Bernie is making every effort to take care of himself in preparation for a 2020 run. I don't believe that there is anything disingenuous about that statement. In a similar vein I'm making every effort to take care of myself in the present so don't comment about my opinions and say that I'm being disingenuous when you aren't walking in my shoes.

[JCanete]

143. no, you are very wrong about who a higher minimum wage hurts. You put more money into the hands

of people locally and first, they will spend more locally, and that will increase job opportunities. Second, companies will only charge as much for non-essentials as people are willing or able to pay. The argument that things like taxes and higher wages will be passed onto consumers is something that big companies and their ad campaigns and media rhetoric have beaten into our heads to make us afraid to make these changes. Sure, there will be a slight uptick but the benefits are far better. Third, your 13-15 dollar an hour skilled job will have to pay more. It just will. These companies won't have you under their thumb if you can literally go anywhere and make that kind of money, and you still have a skill-set they need.

I do not know why you think keeping the baseline low helps you. It doesn't.

[TexasTowelie]

146. I admit that I have to rely on anecdotal evidence, observations, and personal experience

but every time that the minimum wage was increased the price of the products at fast-food restaurants and grocery stores increased accordingly. However, my experience from watching prices increase over a 40 year period obviously doesn't matter to you since they don't fit your theoretical model.

The idea that companies are going to increase job opportunities also doesn't hold true. I live in a town that can't even support a KFC/Taco Bell franchise. Most of the jobs available in this area are looking for long haul truck drivers and delivery trucks such as UPS and FedEx. I can't hold those jobs since I lack a CDL and I have medical conditions that would never allow me to hold that type of work. There are very few positions for administrative/office work where I live and when they do come open it is either for part-time jobs or temporary assignments lasting 3-6 months.

"...your 13-15 dollar an hour skilled job will have to pay more. It just will."

What proof do you have of that? You offer no evidence to back up that claim and it's disingenuous for you to make that claim when you can't support it. In the past when the minimum wage has increased there wasn't a corresponding increase in my salary, but there was an increase in my expenses.

I don't know why you keep insisting that improving the baseline helps me because I have the direct experience that it doesn't. I live in the real world rather than some fictional utopia. Don't tell me some fairy tale about how all wages rise helps everyone because if someone is unemployed or living on a fixed income the only thing those people will see is the price of commodities increase with no corresponding increase in income. That is the reality for millions of Americans and I'm one of them.

[JCanete]

151. My theoretical model?

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-impact-of-raising-the-federal-minimum-wage-to-12-by-2020-on-workers-businesses-and-the-economy-testimony-before-the-u-s-house-committee-on-education-and-the-workforce-member-forum/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjL-ky6zx3QIVlrrACh0h3AmPEAMYASAAEgKLCvD_BwE


excerpts :

Whenever increasing the minimum wage is discussed, there is always concern that doing so might hurt job growth or imperil businesses that employ low-wage workers. In the 22 times the federal minimum wage has been raised, and the over 300 times that states or localities have raised their minimum wages just since the 1980, these concerns have never materialized.

In summary, raising the minimum wage to $12 by 2020 would boost the wages of tens of millions of American workers, increase low-income households’ buying power, reduce reliance on federal assistance programs, and bring the wage floor back up to the same relative value it had in the 1960s. The research indicates that such an increase would not be overly burdensome on businesses or hamper job growth, and could, in fact, strengthen the consumer demand that drives the U.S. economy. I strongly encourage Congress to pass the Raise the Wage Act.

granted, that was focusing on $12 dollars. Here's the EPI study focusing on $15 dollars an hour.

https://www.epi.org/publication/15-by-2024-would-lift-wages-for-41-million/


also:
a 15 dollar minimum wage would obviously make you more money than 13 an hour. It would at least make you 15 an hour. AND again, if you could make 15 dollars an hour doing unskilled work, then what edge does the company paying you 15$ dollars an hour to exploit your skillset have? What leverage does that company have over you? What benefit is it offering that is keeping you(or at least most people from transplanting?)-and if that's the case and these companies need to counter-balance against turnover will they not raise the pay of their workers as well, to above that minimum baseline salary? Could they really continue to get away with not doing so? Sure if there is literally no competition for their workforce in your area, but that's the same story you live with now, and the difference would still be a higher wage, and NOT a commensurate rise in costs...since that rise would not make sense. Prices are set at what people can afford and are willing to pay. You can't suddenly raise prices on goods to absorb those new labor costs and expect that not to hurt your bottom line as a company. In the interem, the worker is by and large, winning at the expense of corporate profit margins. It is literally a direct influx of money into communities, and when that money is spent locally it cycles over and over in those communities.

[TexasTowelie]

152. Ah yes here is the theoretical model,

but all of this fails to respond to the issue of how the minimum wage affects those who or are either living on limited incomes or no income at all. With over one-third of the "working age" U.S. population not participating in the workforce (some by choice while others face issues ranging from age discrimination, disability, or legal issues preventing them from getting hired), the increase in the minimum wage only helps those that are employed.

As far as the EPI theoretical model is concerned, is there any mention in the article about those who aren't in the labor market? I didn't see any which means that the EPI fails to consider those not in the work force and/i] those who have aged out of the labor force. I suspect that there are more people that fit into those groups than the 41 million mentioned in the think tank article.

The EPI article relies on past experience when there were increases in the minimum wage that were in the 10% to 20% percent range. There is no comparative experience in U.S. history to reply upon when implementing a 70% to 100% increase in the minimum wage or the economic effects that it might have. I suspect that an increase in the minimum wage of that magnitude will cause some businesses to fail in which case what good did the increase in the minimum wage do for those employees?

You also insist that people would have transfer to new higher paying jobs without factoring in issues such as whether people have transportation to a more lucrative job or other benefits like being able to arrange their work schedule.

I've also found that companies in the real world will do almost anything possible to contain labor costs. If the price of hourly labor becomes too expensive then they will use the exempt labor force that is paid a salary to make up the slack. I have personal experience in that area as I frequently worked 70-80 hour weeks for months at a time.

I'll rely on my past 40 years of experience in the real world as to how an economic change will affect me rather than believe what a think tank or someone who isn't walking in my shoes says. I wasn't born yesterday. I'm a statistician and I'm well aware of how statistics can be massaged to portray any message and draw any conclusion that is desired which I'm certain that the EPI did.

[JCanete]

162. I don't get it...if they aren't in the labor market the current system isn't doing them any good

either. Where have we been talking about this being the only thing that needs to be done? You just introduced this as an entirely different dimension to our discussion.

Frankly, I think we need BIG/UBI. Failing that, we need other programs coupled with minimum wage hikes, and universal healthcare that covers those who are out of work also.

Sure statistics can do as you say, but your argument doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. There is no way that companies can pass all of the costs of a wage hike onto the consumer. If they could simply price products at anything they wanted and customers would still buy them, they would price them higher even now. They aren't trying to make sure people can get what they need at a reasonable price, they are trying to maximize profits. That means they will only raise the sticker price enough to mitigate some of the new costs.

As to paying salary versus hourly, sure....but why not simply do that now? They will choose the cheaper option for them, but if the cheaper option for them is still higher pay to the worker, then its still higher pay to the worker. And again, if you could simply go down the street and work at McDonalds why would you put up with being exploited for 80 hour work weeks at approximately the same level of pay?

The operative point here is that whatever decisions they are making now, they are only concerned with maximizing profit. There is nothing to fear that they might do if we make them pay more wages that they aren't already willing to do if it saves them money. Thinking that by cowing to big business interests we are staving these things off is folly.


And I did address that if you are in an employment desert perhaps you have no other options, but that's the same under a lower wage as it is under a higher minimum wage, so how on earth would a higher one hurt? Again, the logic of your addition is losing me.

[TexasTowelie]

164. I'm not buying what you're selling.

The point I'm attempting to make is that inflation (which will occur if the minimum wage is raised 70%-100%) harms those with either no income or limited income. You have presented absolutely no evidence that counters that fact.

There aren't many companies that can take an increase in labor costs of that magnitude without raising prices--and according to you it will continue up the chain of command as the workers who are paid over the minimum wage will also see their wages rise. Any company that fails to account for those inflationary increases in labor costs by increasing prices will eventually end up out of business.

There is no way that companies can pass all of the costs of a wage hike onto the consumer.

Bologna. They have before (I remember those price increases) and they will again. When the minimum wage increased from $3.35 an hour to $3.65 an hour when I was in college the price of hamburgers at my local drive-through went up 25 cents per burger and the same on a soft drink. The price went up enough for me to pay the increased wages of one employee for one hour. That was repeated with every customer several times an hour to cover the cost of those employees whether the business was officially open or closed for business. When there were larger wage increases the prices consumers paid jumped accordingly. Those price increases occurred every time that the minimum wage increased, so I discount the EPI study as worthless.

There it is, Economics 101--concise and logical. However, I expect for you to tell me that I'm wrong and that inflation is a good thing for those that are unemployed or on fixed incomes. Where is the logic in that?

By the way, I realize that this is anecdotal, but you might want to read this article that illustrates cause and effect:

St. Paul private colleges fret over $15 minimum wage for work-study students
Private colleges and universities may have to raise tuition to pay students higher wages.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10597089

Would this be considered a good thing if it happened on a nationwide basis?

[JCanete]

165. Show me a study that proves the history that you are presenting. Again, you can only charge what

people can afford. As a company you have to balance the number of customers with how much you can charge them. So if there are potential customers without enough money to buy your products, you have to consider what is the most cost effective path going forward...a higher price that cuts out consumers, or a lower one that has a bigger consumer base.

So no, the only way that prices would rise enough to cover those costs is if people still had enough money(and wouldn't balk at the sticker price) to buy those products and goods at the new price. Again, and I don't know how you could dispute this, these companies will already charge what they can get for their products, so if they could squeeze you more now, they would. It is what you are willing and able to pay that determines what they will charge.

Yes, inflation happens, but its slower than you suggest, for the reasons I stated. Wages will increase slowly up the chain as employers seek to hold onto workers, but as the EPI study does point out, the loss of profits these companies experience from the wage hike is partially(not fully) mitigated by worker retention, so that even to maintain the same profitability companies don't really have to pass all of the hike onto the consumer.


Wow, newsflash, corporations and businesses fret over having to pay their workforce better. Threaten the public with rhetoric.

[TexasTowelie]

169. I see that you are unable to address how an increased minimum wage helps those

who are unemployed or have fixed incomes. You are also stating that what I have observed repeatedly over 40 years isn't true with no evidence to dispute those observations. The moment that I asked for some analysis you became frustrated with me and challenged me to produce my own study when I was upfront and stated that my evidence was anecdotal and based upon observation.

As a company you have to balance the number of customers with how much you can charge them. So if there are potential customers without enough money to buy your products, you have to consider what is the most cost effective path going forward...a higher price that cuts out consumers, or a lower one that has a bigger consumer base.

Your posts do make me question your understanding of economics. In fact you reminded me of this SNL skit:

https://sharetv.com/watch/114786

Similarly, if you price your product such that you are selling at a loss, then having more customers only means that you are going bankrupt faster. Even if a company does sell at a minimal profit with a larger customer base, the question then becomes whether anyone will be willing to invest in that company when the ROI is lowered? Overall that affects the viability of the company as capital becomes unavailable for expansion from either banks or investors. Ironically, making $8 or $10 an hour looks attractive in hindsight after the business closes and people are unemployed.

At this point your discussion with me is pointless because I possess real world experience and observations to rely upon. If you want to argue about theoretical models go find another guinea pig. You are ignoring the reality that the unemployed and those on fixed incomes face when inflationary policies destroy what little those people are holding onto.

[JCanete]

170. first, I accept your anecdotal evidence but it still doesn't add up to me. It doesn't make sense.

also, I absolutely addressed your statement about people who are out of work, in a few ways.

First, I pointed out that the fact that they are out of work already requires address outside of a minimum wage, which I'm certainly not arguing against.

Second, I pointed out that companies have to thread a delicate balance of customer base versus profit per sale. There's a sweet spot. I feel like it was implicit in my statement that that sweet spot was not going to be selling at a loss, so I'm not sure how you managed to derive from that that I was glossing over that detail.

Third, it must be repeated apparently....more money in the hands of locals tends to be at least in part, spent locally. It isn't theoretical that this is an influx of money into a community, which, when spent locally, circulates. This generates more tax dollars for a locality which means more potential government services, which hopefully translates into addressing things(to some degree) like unemployment.


The EPI study isn't simply theoretical. It was using historic evidence of previous minimum wage hikes to address false claims like minimum wage hikes ever adversely affecting employment. You have come back from my arguments and have made bold claims about the full impact of such a hike, which your own anecdotal evidence is hardly sufficient to support. That is why I asked for you for a study to prove your case.

By the way, thanks for the insult. I hope you won't be offended that I didnt' click on your link. I'd prefer you address the points I make rather than to just attempt to blanketly malign my knowledge on this subject, but whatever you need to do. I did not do the same to you. I'm not denying your anecdotal evidence, but it still makes no sense to me. You cannot directly and immediately pass all costs onto consumers. That doesn't happen unless those increased costs are mild enough that they can be absorbed into costs relatively benignly. Yes, you will raise the price to an appropriate level that ensures you make the most profit you can, but again, that's a balancing act. If you lose too many customers you could find yourself operating at a loss anyway, or certainly not at optimal profitability. Do you actually have a counter argument to that?


You do understand that anecdotal evidence is just that though, which is why you were honest enough to label your own evidence as such. You know that you can't and shouldn't base a case around that when we're talking about a far grander impact, and yet its the well you keep going back to.

[TexasTowelie]

171. Then let us refer back to post #162.

Again, the logic of your addition is losing me.

So that comment wasn't meant as insulting or as a personal attack?

Your response to addressing the plight of those who are unemployed or on fixed income levels is UBI? I'm not opposed to it, but it has a less likely chance of passing through Congress and getting signed by the president than the BEZOS bill.

I'm not denying your anecdotal evidence, but it still makes no sense to me.

Then we are in agreement that when the minimum wage has risen that prices of consumer goods have also risen.

You cannot directly and immediately pass all costs onto consumers.

I hate to tell you this, but you are absolutely wrong on that remark. I've worked in restaurants where they changed the prices on their menu over the weekend preceding a wage increase. Most of these restaurants are operating on relatively thin profit margins to begin with and they will try to absorb minor increases such as the price of tomatoes going up for a few weeks. However, they don't have a lot of leeway with labor costs because increased wages get built in as ongoing expense. The company not only has to pay the employees, but they also have to pay taxes to the federal and state governments for unemployment benefits, Social Security, and Medicare. They will also see their workers compensation premiums increase correspondingly since premiums are based upon payroll. It would be foolish for any company not to recognize those increases and try to recoup them from their customers.

That doesn't happen unless those increased costs are mild enough that they can be absorbed into costs relatively benignly.

Huh? I'm confused if you worded this correctly, but if you are saying that companies are willing to absorb small fluctuations in prices due to strikes, or the price of component going up temporarily or at a modest rate then I agree that will happen. However, they are not going to willingly accept a permanent increase in their labor cost without making some adjustment--either it will be by increasing prices or by reducing the total amount of manpower hours throughout the company.

Yes, you will raise the price to an appropriate level that ensures you make the most profit you can, but again, that's a balancing act. If you lose too many customers you could find yourself operating at a loss anyway, or certainly not at optimal profitability. Do you actually have a counter argument to that?

I completely agree with those statements. I've even modeled calculus equations taking into account various factors for finding the optimum prices for products.

As far as my use of anecdotal evidence is concerned, I could most likely support my arguments with links but then I would risk having my reply hidden if a jury considers it a right wing source. It certainly doesn't mean that what I observed isn't true though. I guess that I should have produced price menus from the 1980s onward for proof, but I didn't have the farsightedness to keep such trivia for this discussion. I'll rely on the reality I've observed and experienced over a bunch of cherry-picked facts from a think-tank. Meanwhile, you may fall back to whatever wishing well you want to justify your positions--I'm not stopping you from doing so. However, I don't want to engage in this discussion anymore since you failed to offer any realistic solutions to what happens to the unemployed and fixed income.

It's too bad that you didn't watch the SNL skit. It contained such a great lesson that I still remember it decades later.

[George II]

108. Amazon is a large corporation, not a "platform". As I pointed out elsewhere, they are not...

...the only source for purchasing books.

Within a 10 mile radius of where I live, there are twenty one book stores, four of which are Barnes and Noble stores.

There are plenty of outlets through which one can sell books. It's not that he sells his books on Amazon, but he rails against them and at the same time sells his books on evil, dastardly Amazon.

[melman]

113. You heard it here first folks

Despite what you may have read elsewhere (in other words absolutely fucking everywhere), it turns out bookstores are not in decline at all. In fact the damn things are popping up all over the place. Like weeds! Bookstores everywhere!

[George II]

116. You forgot this:

?

I'm sure you can tell us why there are so many book stores still in business in the United States. All I know is that I can drive about 15 minutes from here and reach no less than 21 book stores.

Are you calling me a liar?

[JCanete]

137. That's still a dumb argument. Amazon has set all of these bookstores in decline, including

Last edited Fri Oct 5, 2018, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Barne's and Noble. They still exist....uh okay. And what do they pay their workers? And what reach do small book stores have? God you are grasping so much and I have no fucking idea why. What is in it for you to stick by this absurd claim that Sanders should reduce the reach of his message in order to make that message stronger? Just stating that there are other outlets means no goddamn thing. Jesus, this is the kind of ridiculous argument you could hear coming from Republicans about why we dont need worker protections or a minimum wage at all. Can workers not protest with their feet? To that other place down the way doing so much better by its workers?

Please. You have to use what's available to you. You can't shun it all and expect to make an inkling of difference. I suspect you actually know this, which is why I find this so frustrating.

[Historic NY]

156. I buy lots of books, Amazon has made selling books competitive...

a book shop can sell using Amazon. I can buy from the big name or look around for a new, used, or other condition from a variety of small book sellers. In fact I just bought a reprint book for a mere 14.00 dollar vs a 199.00 first edition.

[JCanete]

160. what it has done is depressed the value of a writer's work by a lot. It has opened up opportuinities

to self-publish, which does get around the bottleneck and tastes of big publishers,, but your point about the price of books isn't actually good for the book stores or for the content creators. That said, yeah, when it came to academic texts, there was a lot of price-gouging going on. It was certainly a racket.

[R B Garr]

118. It's not like the internet only connects to Amazon. He could pick a little

mom and pop bookstore that is struggling against the big ol' bad c0Rp0rAtion of Amazon that is too big to fail and needs to be broken up and split up into all kinds of little companies. He could just circumvent all of that and go right to a little bookstore and connect that thing right to the internet!

[JCanete]

138. And he'd be making barely a peep in the wilderness with that strategy...I get it...that's why you

think its such a good idea, but it would be as counter-productive as Somebody going off to live in a commune in order to change the world. You have to exist in the world you are trying to change.

[R B Garr]

139. He should be explaining the benefits of large corporations then

and how they are necessary for his personal:business goals, lol. Others surely have similar needs.

[JCanete]

140. again, getting out a message is not the same as self-agrandizement or profiteering.

You are ascribing an agenda you have no shred of evidence of, but don't let that stop you. It clearly isn't your chief concern.

[R B Garr]

141. No "evidence" is needed to compare someone's words

to their actions. You just watch what they do compared to what they say, including holding others to standards you don’t apply to yourself, edit, therefore, “getting a message out” but not applying it to yourself is hypocrisy.

[JCanete]

144. what is his message? That you shouldn't be able to make a profit, or that you shouldn't be able to

legally be exploitative? Since it isn't the first and has never been the first, your own point is silly, because there's no hypocrisy here that you are highlighting. What is in his message that he isn't applying to himself?

[R B Garr]

147. The message is so obvious that it appears your post is just to offer more excuses

which are not useful or necessary at this point.

It's very obvious what the message is. This is about the third day now with several of your posts that offer nothing but some "silly" (your word) obfuscation. It's obvious you get it but you want to make it personal. Enough.

[JCanete]

150. really? I'm asking a direct question that you are dancing around because you don't have an answer.

It would be really easy to give one if you had one that wouldn't embarrass you.

[R B Garr]

158. I guess you think you are being clever by trying to obfuscate,

but it looks more “embarrassing” for you to pretend that you don’t understand hypocrisy and double standards. Seriously, all you are doing is trying to make this personal so you can slip in some not-so-coy personal insults.

[JCanete]

161. Yeah, I see. Explaining yourself here would actually clarify your argument enough that it could be

dismantled. We wouldn't want that.

Also, maybe read over your own posts before you throw stones.

[R B Garr]

167. It was clear what I said in my first post on the subject, but apparently

that is not what this is about, as you explain more bitterly that your concerns are personal, as if that wasn’t obvious, lol.

Maybe there’s hope that Sanders will boycott Amazon like some of his followers urge of others. There isn’t anything to “dismantle” about observing someone’s actions vs their words, so no need to flatter yourself. Thanks.

[JCanete]

168. so you have to drag in what some of his followers encourage of others rather than anything he has

personally said about boycotting Amazon to try to shoehorn in your hypocrisy argument. Well, carry on then.

[R B Garr]

172. LOL, more obfuscating and excuses. Now I'm "shoehorning".

As usual, your response was a personal swipe, which looks to be the real goal.

[R B Garr]

148. If you contradict yourself "getting out the message" then it's just propaganda.

There is no evidence needed to observe actions vs words.

It's clear your "chief concern" is protracted obfuscation with nothing else to discuss but some personal nits. Let's move on.

[JCanete]

149. I'll ask again, albeit futilely. What is the contradiction? Your chief concern seems to be

spouting declarations that you can't defend, and clearly don't think you need to.

[R B Garr]

157. There is nothing to "defend" about observing someone's

actions, lol. You just look at the standards they place on themselves versus others. And you are not “asking again”. There’s another word for it.

[melman]

112. OMG

A coordinated event!


I can't take it. It's just too much. Too much!

[TexasTowelie]

132. OMG melman, it's just too much

that you're continuing to kick this thread after post #74.

[joshcryer]

66. Knew there was a catch.

This will mostly affect longer time workers, too. And so long productivity bonuses.

[Upthevibe]

83. I've read the op and some of the comments....

My feeling is this: Jeff Bezos is the richest man on Planet Earth. In fact, he's the richest man in modern history. 150 billion. And I've heard for years that Amazon doesn't treat their employees right. That's why I very rarely order from them.

[Jamaal510]

94. K&R

[betsuni]

95. K&R

[Initech]

129. They could cut Jeff Bezos' salary by a few billion to pay for it.

But oh wait, that's never gonna happen.

[MineralMan]

131. There's always a catch.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos is now the wealthiest man on the planet.

[Historic NY]

154. Amazon stock price...1889.65 close yesterday....

[dembotoz]

155. So the approved Dem response is don't raise the wages???

A little clarity from the Bernie haters

[lame54]

163. Which package is worth more...

Bonuses get taxed to the max

[moriah]

166. There's always a juggle.

In HP's reorganization during the Great Recession, they did across-the-board pay cuts, with hourly penalized less than salary in theory -- but also cut shift differentials, benefits for straight non-married domestic partners (which I'd been using to cover the guy I'd been living with and his kid from his previous marriage to keep her off SCHIP-based, aka taxpayer funded, insurance) were cut and the company paid less of the premium share for everyone else's dependents, and while execs got theoretically large base pay cuts, they didn't lose their real income -- *their* incentives and bonuses.

This was to avoid more Enhanced Early Retirement/Workforce Reduction (the two types of RIFs with severance) than was HP's normal turnover rate -- managers usually tried to use them when it would benefit a departing employee and meet the district quota in favor of just having to cull the "least productive employees", but only so many people each year have a spouse that got offered a better job in another state, are experiencing such health problems they're going to exceed all company leave, short term disability, and FMLA but didn't buy LTD coverage, or are wanting to take their family on a mission trip (three instances they were used in my tenure there). The idea was take a paycut to keep them from doing a really heavy cull, told to us to be expected to be 5-10% of hourly positions. A "5% salary cut" sounded better than "5% of jobs cut".

Because I'd been on third shift weekends, my pay went down FAR more than most of my colleagues -- 20% instead of 5%. But I was 1) happy to not get fired, though I didn't truly feel in danger as few people wanted my shift, would want it even less without the bonuses, and I was getting good performance reviews, and 2) willing, as a person without a family to support, to accept a little less for what I was doing in the hopes people who did have kids living with them would keep their jobs.

I am not a corporate account to know exactly how much reducing incentive bonuses at executive levels would equate to cents per hour. And the people currently working for Amazon very well may have families to support, too. Maybe they can find some higher-up pockets to squeeze to give current employees a little bigger of a bump. But I'd be looking more at costs of group rate health insurance for dependents to not get cut -- that's a place they're going to hurt people if they squeeze.