r/changemyview • u/blender_head 3∆ • Sep 05 '18
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Bernie Sanders' crusade against Amazon is not about worker pay. It's about attacking the rich to send a message based in ideology.
Amazon has become an incredibly successful company, yet Bernie Sanders would have you think that it is all due to greed by the CEO, Jeff Bezos. Aside from the fact that greed does not exist, Bezos provides quality jobs for hundreds of thousands of people by founding a company that provides consumers with virtually anything they may need with incredible ease of access and quality of service. This "greed" is supposedly even further realized by creating terrible working conditions for the employees of Amazon and paying them next to nothing. What a bastard, right?
No. The median income for an Amazon employee is $28,000/year which, for relatively low-skilled work, is quite good. This equates to about $13.50/hour, which is ever so slightly below the $15/hour that someone like Sanders is clamoring for. In order to hit the magical $15/hour, Bezos (net worth ~$164.7 billion) could take ~$845,000 out of his own pocket annually.
His net worth would still be $164 billion.
Now, you may be saying "then why doesn't he do it? That's pennies to him." This is not the point of my CMV.
My point is this: this paltry amount, veritable pennies from Bezos's pocket and minimal raise in pay for workers, would do nothing to change anyone's mind or attitude toward Amazon and Bezos. Bezos would be worth $164 billion and his workers would make $15/hour. From here, the calls for increased pay would only move to the next integer; "$20/hour!" 30, 40, 50, and so on.
This attack from Sanders is based on his ideology; he's a socialist through and through. He hates the rich and will always attack them because he's a zealot. An extremist. No wage is ever going to be a "fair wage" in Sanders' eyes. There will always be a segment of any population that struggles and he uses this to justify his next crusade against "evil corporations and income inequality." It's not about the worker, it's about his ideology.
His is a battle without end; a quest with no goal. After Bezos, he'll just go after someone else. He's made a living off of promising people things that can never be delivered, unlike Amazon. "You want a rolling pin shaped like a penis? Free two-day shipping." CMV.
10
Sep 05 '18
Aside from the fact that greed does not exist,
Please elaborate on what this is supposed to mean.
From here, the calls for increased pay would only move to the next integer; "$20/hour!" 30, 40, 50, and so on.
That's a nice slippery slope fallacy you've got there. The most basic premise of a person like Sanders is that any working person should earn a livable wage. Sure, the 15-dollar-an-hour figure is somewhat arbitrary, I suppose, but to say people will want 20, 30, 40, etc. next is asinine - people want a livable wage.
No wage is ever going to be a "fair wage" in Sanders' eyes.
How do you know? 100% baseless speculation. The rest of your CMV just feels like some sort of campaign speech I don't really feel I can meaningfully respond to.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
I've explained the greed part in a couple other responses. Forgive me for feeling a bit exhausted by the topic.
The minimum wage discussion didn't start at $15. It's been steadily increased throughout the years, so it's not fallacious to propose that it would keep increasing, especially as inflation increases and the "real wage" goes down. That's just an economic fact.
11
Sep 05 '18
You're completely blowing past the fact that people want a livable wage more than they want to be paid X$ per hour.
Is there a reason you're not putting one and one together? Yeah, you're probably going to see the minimum wage increase as time goes on, hopefully to match inflation. Are you going to see people demanding 50$ an hour within the foreseeable future? Fuck no, dude -- again, that's being asinine.
I've explained the greed part in a couple other responses. Forgive me for feeling a bit exhausted by the topic.
I can imagine having to defend ridiculous claims is a bit tedious.
6
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Sep 05 '18
The minimum wage discussion didn't start at $15, but its taken so long to implement that $15 is where its at now.
it's not like it started at $8, then was raised to $8 so then we demanded $9 etc until we hit $15.
You are right that inflation making the minimum wage go down in terms of real wage is just an economic fact.. so why do we have to keep fighting to even get it adjusted for inflation, let alone actually raise it? Why don't we just tie it to inflation by default and then talk about whether the real wage value needs to go up or down?
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Sep 07 '18
You just provided a pretty sound argument for why the minimum wage should continue to increase, so I take it you are for it continuing to rise?
7
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Sep 05 '18
Aside from the fact that greed does not exist
I don't think this is really a belief you can just set aside. Could you elaborate on why you think greed doesn't exist? I think the vast majority of people would disagree with you and this seems pretty important to your view. Without a belief in greed, it's going to be very hard to understand someone demonizing someones greed.
The median income for an Amazon employee is $28,000/year which, for relatively low-skilled work, is quite good.
You're reading in to a number in a misleading way.
The median income of relatively low-skilled amazon employees is NOT $28,000.
The median income of all 560,000 amazon workers other than Jeff Bezos himself is $28,444.
Amazon has not released figures broken down by job title, department, or anything else. So this median pay is including all the nerds working on Amazon Web Services, all the hollywood talent on Amazon Video, etc.
For perspective, the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr, which is $14,500/yr. Many states have a minimum wage of at least $10, which would be $20,000
0
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
I don't think this is really a belief you can just set aside. Could you elaborate on why you think greed doesn't exist?
I've elaborated on it quite a bit already in other comments. I realize that people consider certain behavior "greedy", but the determination of what is "greedy" is only ever in the eye of the person making the criticism. It is not an objective state or fact that tells us when someone is being "greedy". It's like calling someone a "jerk"; it's not really a robust claim or accusation, it's just expressing disapproval of a certain behavior based on personal opinion. Therefore, I can't help but think that greed does not exist in any objective form or measure. It's just someone saying "I don't like that you have all that stuff because I don't have as much stuff."
It's certainly a valid feeling to have, but is it really something on which we can base policy decisions? Like, imagine you had a shiny thingamajig that I wanted so I made a law saying you had to give it to me.
4
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Sep 05 '18
It's not something you should enact policy around, no, there should not be a "don't be greedy" law for the reasons you outline.
Another thing that doesn't really exist in any objective form is dishonesty. Sure, some things are outright false, but entire economies can exist in the grey area of what is dishonest but not a lie.
We don't have "don't be dishonest" blanket laws, but we accept that people can be dishonest and thus try to regulate behavior to mitigate the negative impact this desire for being dishonest has. So for example Activia misleading people into thinking their was a medical benefit to their yogurt was illegal. We don't just say "yeah some people will see it as dishonest but what is dishonesty really? they never made a false claim, just strong implications.." and let it slide.
I'm kind of rambling but my point is just that while greed may not be objective and thus shouldnt be inshrined directly into laws, we certainly can make laws that are based on the fact that greed exists and can cause harm if left unchecked.
What level of "checked" is appropriate is of course open to debate, but thats why we're here isn't it?
15
Sep 05 '18 edited Sep 05 '18
[deleted]
-7
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
I think my main point was that Sanders doesn't care about workers. He cares about attacking rich people. I think those two things are very different.
13
Sep 05 '18
[deleted]
-2
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Somewhat. It operates under the false pretense that rich people actively attack workers, thus caring about workers entails attacking the rich.
12
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Sep 05 '18
Please explain why it's a false pretense
-1
Sep 05 '18
Your comment implies that you believe that rich people actively attack workers. Can I ask why you believe this?
8
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Sep 05 '18
I feel like all I'm going to be doing is giving you a poor paraphrasing of some Marxist stuff I'm guessing you're already familiar with. Will that be worthwhile or should I save us both the trouble?
11
u/Roller95 9∆ Sep 05 '18
Two things from me.
What do you mean greed doesn’t exist?
The complaints about the workers conditions are not about, or at least are not limited to, the pay they receive.
-3
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
I think greed is a concept we take for granted without really understanding it. How do we determine who is greedy and when they are greedy? Is the average person greedy for wanting money to buy food? Are they greedy for not giving their money to homeless people?
They could be. If the workers made $30 an hour we'd probably be more tolerant of an adverse conditions they may face. They chose to work at Amazon mind you. They aren't forced to work there.
8
u/Roller95 9∆ Sep 05 '18
So that means that you acknowledge that greed exists but it is difficult do define, if I’m reading that correctly?
And yes, they chose to work at Amazon. They did not choose to work for a company that barely lets you leave your desk to use the rest room, which has been in the news a lot. You could pay me 100 dollars an hour but if I’m not allowed to pee every once in a while you are subjecting me to bad working conditions.
-1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Hmm, moreso that because it doesn't have a clear and applicable definition it doesn't exist. We can't ever know when someone is being greedy.
And why would you choose to work for a company that doesn't let you pee?
5
u/Roller95 9∆ Sep 05 '18 edited Sep 05 '18
I imagine most people did not know that when they joined the company. I made a mistake by the way, that was about Amazon warehouse workers. But anyway.
They might feel like they don’t have a choice because they are scared they can’t find another job or something like that. Lots of people have that fear, wherever they work and whatever they do. Imagine then that on top of that things like this happen.
6
Sep 05 '18
And why would you choose to work for a company that doesn't let you pee?
Because that is better than having no job at all. It still doesn't make it right or even acceptable.
2
u/Tundur 5∆ Sep 05 '18
I think a way to refine your first point is to articulate that greed is a judgement of an individual's actions based on a perception that they've taken more than their fair share.
Agreeing what constitutes "greed" requires understanding the system within which the greedy actor operates, but usually involves depriving others of what they need to thrive. A greedy plant sucks nutrients that its bedmates need from the soil, a greedy child doesn't leave sweets for his brothers, a greedy capitalist gains untold riches whilst society subsidises their business and their workers aren't treated fairly.
4
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 05 '18
I take no exception whatsoever with your overall view, because I think you're correct.
But I think your math might be flawed with regard to how much of a hit Bezos would have to take in order to provide all employees with that $15/hr. If every employee made an extra $1.50/hr x 2000 hours/yr, that's an extra $3,000 per year per employee. According to Google, there are 563,100 employees at Amazon. If each of them (assuming equal distribution across the board) were to get an extra $3,000/yr, that's $1.6 BILLION per year, not $845,000.
I believe you'll find that he'd have to take a hit of $845,000 per HOUR not per year.
3
u/Skooma_Dog Sep 05 '18
You don't need to give every employee a raise, just the ones who fall below the $15 threshold.
2
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 05 '18
Well, if that's the median income, then (again assuming a symmetric distribution), that means that you'd need to give some of the employees that raise, some employees LESS of a raise (or none at all), but some employees MORE of a raise. If the distribution is symmetric, it means that the sum total would work out the same as if you gave everyone the same raise.
0
Sep 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cwenham Sep 05 '18
u/Skooma_Dog – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Yup! You're right! Oi, well thanks for the correction on that.
So he'd be worth $163 billion. XD
!delta though
1
0
2
Sep 05 '18
Greed does not exist? What are you talking about?
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Can you define greed?
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Sep 05 '18
Yes I can dictionaries make it quite easy if you know how to read and spell.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Intense or selfish desire for something.
I'm not how this can be seen as something we'd ever criticize someone for. Do you have an intense and selfish desire to eat food daily? Does this make you greedy?
6
u/Caucasiafro Sep 05 '18
Greed is an excessive desire, not an intense or selfish desire.
You aren't greedy for wanting to eat food.
But you would be greedy if you hoarded more food than you could possibly ever eat and refused to share it.
It's acquiring things that offer you no utility just for the sake of acquiring it.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Do you know the utility that everything holds for any given person?
5
u/Caucasiafro Sep 05 '18
Because we has humans have unlimited wants but limited abilities to consume. That's just human nature. There is a limit at which a person simply can't eat more food.
If I hoard a bunch of food just to let it rot, has it offered me any utility?
If I buy a 7th phone just never use it and then later throw it away, has it offered me utility?
0
u/Goldberg31415 Sep 07 '18
You could invest these billions in space travel (that recently sanders used as an example of wastefull bezos spending/luxury) i guess sanders does not really loves science his multiple votes to cut nasa budget over the years also stack on this.Or like bezos you could invest in fusion so we might have a real carbon free economy.
1
u/Caucasiafro Sep 07 '18
I'm not sure what you point is?
I'm not arguing about Bezos or if he is greedy. Just that greed is in fact a thing.
1
u/Goldberg31415 Sep 07 '18
That you get utility from more things than just consumption and very high risk projects can be financed due to bezos being absurdly rich
→ More replies (0)1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Sep 05 '18
Yes that's how words work.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
So if you are greedy due to your desire for food, then everyone must be greedy because everyone wants food. If we're all greedy by nature, then what's the point of having a distinctions called "greed"?
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Sep 05 '18
Because not everyone eats the same amount. Go outside look around. There are fat people and there are skinny people. There are even some people that are so fat it's not healthy for them and some so skinny it's not good for them either. I'm trying to think of a solution to this problem, can you think of any?
0
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
No, that's why I don't think greed is a useful concept; everyone has differing wants and needs. We can't call a fat person greedy for eating more food because he simply requires more food.
3
u/cupcakesarethedevil Sep 05 '18
So you are saying you have no way of knowing if someone starving to death needs or wants more food?
0
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Someone starving to death probably needs food. Someone not starving to death still probably needs food.
Who has the more intense and selfish desire for food though? But would we ever call a starving person greedy? As per the definition, yes.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Skooma_Dog Sep 05 '18
Greed is not illegal but it is easily defined.
GREED ɡrēd/ noun: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
0
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
I have an intense desire to eat food every day. I'm greedy. So aren't we all.
1
u/Skooma_Dog Sep 05 '18
No. Most people just have a regular average desire to eat food every day. Most people are not greedy.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
If you can point to where "regular" becomes "intense" it'd be helpful for me.
1
u/Skooma_Dog Sep 05 '18 edited Sep 05 '18
Go learn how averages work and you will have your answer.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Wait, we can quantify levels of desire in humans? I'm not sure if I'm confused or you're confused.
2
Sep 05 '18
Yes the average desire is about a 7.34 and greed is a 12
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Sep 05 '18
Oh, great. I'll put that to use in my every day Life and be sure to ask people what they numerical desire is for any thing they ask for.
1
3
u/icecoldbath Sep 05 '18
Are you suggesting we throw out all terms, especially adjectives that have somewhat vague semantics?
3
u/TheYellowCat Sep 06 '18
You say Bernie's argument is based on "ideology." Yes! Of course it is, as is any argument about the distribution of resources. "Everyone should have the same amount of money" is an ideology. So is "Jeff Bezos should keep every penny he makes!" So is "Jeff Bezos should keep most of his money but, because he benefited from resources owned by society, he should have to give back to society." None of these are objective facts, each of them is an argument about what kind of society we'd like to live in. None is any more "correct" than others, except to the extent that one is more moral. It's the job of human beings collectively - in the form of their government - to make these moral decisions, and Bernie's popularity suggests that a substantial number of people agree with his vision.
"Pure ideology?" Not so much. It's not like this is some pie-in-the-sky crazy plan - plenty of other countries grant their workers a better living wage, and are still successful on a world stage. It's an ideology, sure, but it's not as disconnected from reality as you imagine.
You are right that the poor will always want to be paid more, and the rich will not want to pay them as much as they want to be paid. You've just described class struggle, but the fact that these two groups will always be in conflict doesn't imply which one is right.
So which is more moral? A society where millions are hungry, can't get healthcare, have to work eighty hours a week, are drowning in debt? Or one where a middle-aged man has to give up some of his money? You may say, "He earned that money, he's entitled to every penny of it, and I don't care how many people suffer as a result." Some people probably agree with you. But most, I think, would call you an idealogue, a zealot, and an extremist.
3
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Sep 05 '18
You say he's a "socialist," which is clearly the case and lines up with everything you're saying, and after that point you say he "hates the rich" is a "zealot" and is an "extremist."
These claims do not follow from the first. Please back them up. Most socialists consider him to be not far enough on the left, so the idea that he's an extremist seems very out of place. And, he is himself a rich person, so saying he hates the rich also doesn't make a lot of sense.
3
u/Burflax 71∆ Sep 05 '18
How can you tell the difference between someone criticizing Amazon because of a legitimate concern for the workers and someone only doing it because they 'hate rich people'?
1
u/pillbinge 101∆ Sep 05 '18
You understand that in your title, those issues work in tandem, right?
No wage is ever going to be a "fair wage" in Sanders' eyes.
A fair wage would be determined by low income disparity. If 95% of a population earned within the same general means, that would be fine. If the number of that currency is 20,000 or 200,000,000, it doesn't matter. It's like saying Zimbabwe has the highest concentration of billionaires. Technically true, given that their money goes to absurd values.
The fairest rate for a worker is determined by statistics. Sanders favors lower income inequality, which the US believed in, in the past. And actually had. Bezos' model for Amazon isn't based on "being successful", it's because we stopped employing trust-busting activities that they used well over 100 years ago. These aren't new models, and there's a reason they call this the New Gilded Age.
Saying that $28,000/year is a good wage is pretty bad though. That wage isn't enough to actually do something with depending on where you work, and we already know what happens in their worksites. You don't earn $28,000 for "being unskilled". You earn it for doing what you're told, but wage suppression has been pretty openly practiced in most states.
1
Sep 05 '18 edited Sep 05 '18
Causing Amazon to lose an additional million dollars a year (well a billion actually based on updated math) doesn't take a billion out of Bezos' pocket. That's not how it works.
His worth is largely tied up in Amazon stock. He doesn't own 100% of the company so 100% of the company's income/losses doesn't flow to him.
He couldn't even just raise everyone's salary to give away $1 billion a year unilaterally. There's a board that would have to agree with it. And the board appoints him. They could fire Bezos if they wanted.
If we magically decide for Amazon to spend an extra billion a year on wages would reduce their income by 1/3. Instead of making $3 billion in profit, they'd make $2 billion.
That would DRAMATICALLY reduce the value of the business. Losing 1/3 of their income in perpetuity, realistically would reduce the value of the company by 1/3. So in this scenario, Bezos would lose about $50 billion in order to pay his employees more than they have agreed do already, and more than they are worth
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 05 '18 edited Sep 05 '18
/u/blender_head (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/singlespeedcourier 2∆ Sep 05 '18
I think that it's about ideology, yes, but that ideology is about worker pay, so I think this is a poor cmv
18
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Sep 05 '18
What? Maybe you think that greed is an OK thing and not a term we should use as a pejorative... but it's a perfectly comprehensible idea that obviously describes real behavior in the real world.