
Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act - panarky
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-stop-bezos-act-summary?inline=file
======
harryh
These aren't employer subsidies, and calling them such is a lie. The money
doesn't go to the companies.

We have decided that there should be a minimum standard of living for people
that live in the US. Paying for that decision falls on all of us, not just the
companies that happen to employ those with lower paying jobs.

This is essentially a special tax on companies that happen to have business
models that require low skill labor. Why should companies(1) with business
models that only require high skill labor get off the hook when it comes to
paying their fare share of the bill for our countries social services?

1\. or more correctly those companies stockholders and employees

~~~
dcole2929
The problem is that we have not legally mandated that the wage that companies
in America pay employees must be enough to obtain that minimum standard of
living and so companies don't pay it. It's not a special tax on companies that
require low skilled labor, it's a tax on companies that don't pay there low
skilled labor enough to live on. I'm on the fence to whether this bill is a
good idea or a bad one but to be clear this is more than just let's hit big
companies in the pocket. Compare Amazon vs Costco for instance. Both require
low skilled workers but Amazon, a company with a trillion dollar market cap,
pays it's employees relatively peanuts for how much the company itself makes
whereas Costco pays it employees so well, and provides enough perks that it is
regularly cited as one of the best places to work. That's the difference here.

~~~
fiter
I'd rather think about this in the context of healthcare. It would be nice if
we had healthcare for all, because it would make hiring people easier, and
people could have healthcare even if they aren't employed. This Stop BEZOS Act
is like mandating that employers provide healthcare. Why not give healthcare
to everyone and avoid the implementation cost for every businesses?

~~~
neon_electro
This is an interesting point - if we passed Medicare for All tomorrow, what
would that mean in the context of this act?

------
zaroth
My first thought was that since the welfare benefits to the employee are tax
free this becomes a (marginally) more effective way to “pay” your low-wage
employees.

But the marginal tax rate at that part of the curve, taking into account the
EITC is close enough to zero that it’s not an issue.

I like the plan, I think that it needs a slight tweak. The fine should be 200%
of the subsidy, and perhaps it should only apply to workers working at least
20 hours a week.

~~~
mabramo
Do you mean workers working 20 hours a weeks total or 20 hours a week at a
particular employer?

There are plenty of individuals who work multiple jobs, still get only 30-some
hours, and still collect public assistance. Seems like a needless clause.

~~~
zaroth
Who pays the fine if you work 3 jobs 15 hours a week each? If they are all
large employers — all 3 of them?

Remember this doesn’t change anything about what the employee is paid, it’s a
fine for paying an employee too little to be self sufficient. I’m not sure
that makes sense if someone is only working for you one day a week, for
example.

------
paulus_magnus2
Wages are as low as employers can get away with. The problem would disappear
if all workers had 10 employers to choose from. Lack of demand for labour is
due to not enough market competition. We need to push corporations into a
innovation race toward better products. Elon Musk is disrupting the auto
industry, same thing needs to happen for every industry with entrenched rent-
seeking players who drag their feet.

~~~
panarky
_> Wages are as low as employers can get away with_

Monopsony: a market structure in which a few buyers substantially control the
market as the major purchasers of goods and services offered by many would-be
sellers.

------
sesutton
It seems like it would be far more efficient to just raise the minimum wage.
But I guess that doesn't have a clever acronym.

~~~
0x8BADF00D
It’s not efficient at all. In fact it’s quite the opposite. Minimum wage will
reduce overall employment, because the price of labor increases.

~~~
TheLoneAdmin
Doesn't BEZOS increase the price of labor for Amazon, reducing the number of
employees they employ? IMO, this looks similar to a minimum wage law for large
companies.

------
legatus
Why has this thread disappeared from the front page? By the way, the link
results, for me, in "Sorry, a potential security risk was detected in your
submitted request. The Webmaster has been alerted. "

~~~
anothergoogler
It's the old HN shuffle: Flag controversial thread off the front page, mark
unflagged as dupe of flagged/aged thread that can no longer surface.

~~~
dang
In this case it's the "old HN shuffle" of not having off-topic stories, as I
explained here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919681)

~~~
anothergoogler
I didn't mean to ascribe intent. I wrote more earlier in a reply attempt, but
it was blocked ("you're posting too much" karma penalty message).

------
cabaalis
> The fact is if employers in this country simply paid workers a living wage,
> taxpayers would save about $150 billion a year on federal assistance
> programs.

I'm not at all convinced that removing people from federal assistance programs
(i.e. necessitating a need for a reduction in those programs' budgets) would
in fact directly result in less taxes being paid by me.

> This bill would establish a corporate welfare tax on large employers equal
> to the amount of federal benefits received by their low-wage workers.

But it does not establish a means to reduce my tax burden whatsoever. I feel
this is a valid criticism as the basis of the argument is that it's costing
"the taxpayers." Well, I'm a taxpayer. I'm a shareholder in this organization,
what's my get? I'm seeing large corps raising prices to offset the new tax, no
new benefits for the underprivileged it's supposed to be helping, and no
reduction in my personal costs. The net to me of that arrangement is less
money in my pocket due to increased prices at the big companies.

> Large companies, not taxpayers, should be required to pay for federal public
> assistance programs that their employees are eligible to receive.

No, the system should be setup such that taxes are fair and equitable enough
to cover the operating costs of the government. I'm seeing way too much of an
"us" vs "them" in this arrangement, which I'm not surprised by given who is
proposing it.

> The Stop Bezos Act gives large employers a choice: pay workers a living wage
> or pay for the public assistance programs low-wage workers are forced to
> rely upon.

We have no constitutional right to "living wage" and for the government to
attempt to enforce a right that does not exist is a problem. I'll leave that
argument at that.

------
dragonwriter
As political grandstanding to rally the base around an issue and highlight a
contrast between the sympathies of your faction and an opposing one to
mobilize voters, it's not too bad.

As substantive policy its a nightmare than would crush the people it purports
to be aimed at helping, though, and the danger of grandstanding like this is
it can get out of control and build the kind of support for the policy that
makes it politically irresistible so that it gets adopted, at least in
outline.

I wonder how much of this is the Sanders camp being concerned that Warren had
gotten way ahead of them with her recent moves (which are nearly as good as
grandstanding and much better as substantive policy.) There's clearly a
(mostly friendly, perhaps, but still intense) competition to be the standard
bearer of the economic progressive faction of the Democratic Party going into
the 2020 cycle.

Electoral maneuvering aside, the simple solution to the policy problem this is
aimed at is reducing the preference for capital income over labor income in
the tax system, which makes hiring labor at any given wage level less
expensive, and thereby more competitive with capital-intensive automation.

------
anthroprose
I'm not exactly sure how this could even be implemented.

Take the sharing economy into account:

Lyft/Uber InstaCart/Pizza Delivery Seasonal Workers such as Amazon Warehouse
associates McDonalds/Walmart flex scheduling shifts "involuntary part time"

Say an average person for this particular sharing economy example include two
or three part-time jobs throughout the year.

The person starts the year as a seasonal worker for amazon (christmas rush
into new years) 160hours total, they then receive unemployment payments for a
period of time. Later they become a part time employee of Walmart stocking
late at night (400 hours). Finally they drive for both Uber and Lyft depending
on customer volume to fill in the time they are not receiving shifts from
Walmart (250hours).

According to this bill, there is no logical way to split the federal benefits
as defines (school lunch, housing subsidies, SNAP and medicaid. The
unemployment is paid from employer's insurance. Is the total amount of tax for
each employer simply divided by the number of hours employed? Seems like its
being left up to the IRS in order to figure out the implementation.

------
lbearl
The big problem that immediately pops up to me is: a good chunk of the
examples of low wage workers are in fast-food (i.e. the McDonald's example).
Just about every fast food company out there is a franchise, and I'd be very
surprised if there are more than a couple of franchisees which have over 500
employees.

~~~
theandrewbailey
From the link:

> Under this legislation, large employers are defined as employers who have
> more than 500 employees, including part -time workers, independent
> contractors and _franchise workers_.

I'm not an expert in legalese (and this isn't the legislation itself), but the
last two words imply that McDonald Corporate would be on the hook for
franchisee's employee's food stamps.

~~~
lbearl
Thanks for pointing that out, that seems to patch up that rather large hole in
the proposed legislation.

------
dang
Clever title, but "politician introduces a bill" is a leading class of non-
story (because most bills go nowhere). This is even more dilute that: it's an
announcement that a politician will introduce a bill.

In other words, it's an announcement of an announcement, the most off-topic of
offtopicness.

~~~
dragonwriter
> and this is a politician announcing that he will introduce a bill.

While technically true at the time the linked summary was written, the bill
has in fact been introduced and this is a summary of it as well a statement
that it will be introduced.

Whether or not it is “evidence of some interesting new phenomenon” is, I would
agree, debatable.

------
Shivetya
(besides the obvious political grandstanding timing of it)

Simply put, no. It is not the responsibility of employers to ensure that any
job they offer provides sufficient compensation to an employee to live where
they want.

Government actions have done far more damage and kept more people in poor
financial straights than lack of pay. From the over zealous war on drugs to
fund the politically powerful police and sheriff unions to the expense of the
public employee pension systems which have driven up the cost of local
government services, fees, and licensing, all at the cost of helping those in
need.

~~~
Falling3
>Government actions have done far more damage and kept more people in poor
financial straights than lack of pay. From the over zealous war on drugs to
fund the politically powerful police and sheriff unions

I'm not disagreeing with your premise completely, but conflating policies that
are genuinely meant to help the working poor and policies that are
specifically meant to harm people (the war on drugs being an excellent
example) is dishonest and unhelpful.

------
sharemywin
while we're at it why stop at employee subsidies. Why do giant corps get any
tax breaks or subsidies?

~~~
whatshisface
Separating "why" and "why should," multinationals get subsidies and tax breaks
because they negotiate with governments, have leverage, and can "walk away."
(to another country)

~~~
sharemywin
Maybe we should adopt something like this.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_tax)

------
tzs
I have no idea how accurate this analysis is, but it was interesting (found in
discussion of this on /r/technology):

[https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/9a3sjh/old_ma...](https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/9a3sjh/old_man_yells_at_amazon_cloud/)

Anyone who knows economics here who can comment on whether that is a good
argument or not?

------
dcole2929
Very interesting idea on the service, that will never pass. Anyone with a
vested interest in a large company, (e.g. almost everyone in congress) will
have every incentive to see this thing die as quickly as possible. Also I'm
not even sure it's a good idea to begin with. Color me intrigued though

------
tootie
I'm curious what the macroeconomic effect would be. Is this just shifting
public costs to private companies? Workers actual compensation wouldn't change
since they would lose government benefits as their wages increase.

~~~
dv_dt
For all those that assert gov't is inefficient, and that businesses are better
at optimization, then shifting equivalent public costs to private company
scope should be an economic win.

------
oh-moses
> Additionally, the bill makes it unlawful for a large employer to ask
> employees whether or not they qualify for federal benefits.

…But then how would the employer's tax department know how much to pay in the
proposed tax?

------
radium3d
I can see the point, but the cheaper option for the corporation is still to
pay the tax vs paying a living wage because not all employees will be using
the federal support.

------
kangnkodos
Unintended consequence - workers who are sick or have large families and need
government aid get fired. The goal is good. But this exact method is flawed.

------
aresant
For as much as the Democrats have been screaming about a need to return to
civility naming the act after a private citizen, richest man or not, is too
funny.

Compared to - say - the legislation resulting from the sub-prime crisis - in
which powerful individuals at the head of national and global banking systems
(and governments) almost ended the world as we know it.

Anyways, of course the actual brief doesn't actually reference how much Amazon
employees are currently being subsidized (vs referenceing Walmart's $6.2b),
because this isn't about the dollars and cents, it's about rushing something
through on the back of bad press and Trump's tweetstorms.

The government grows unto itself, shoot first, aim later.

~~~
dragonwriter
> For as much as the Democrats have been screaming about a need to return to
> civility

Democrats have not generally been screaming about a need to return to
civility, they've been screaming about a need to return to estsblished
substantive and procedural norms.

 _Republicans_ have been demanding civility as a means of deflecting the
increasingly strenuous objections on those issues.

------
RhysU
Bezos, just to make a point, should stop doing business in and with entities
from Vermont.

------
andrew_
Clever alternative to raising the minimum wage by a large amount. The
Libertarian in me sees a possibility that this will reduce the government's
burden and (potentially) reduce social services by a teensy amount.

Surely there are detriments I haven't considered, and please do share them if
any come to mind.

~~~
harryh
It's a large intervention into the free market and a significant tax
distortion.

Why should companies that employ lower skill workers pay higher taxes than
those that employ higher skilled workers?

~~~
andrew_
Excellent question. Slight tangent, but in many states (Michigan is one) there
are already disproportionate worker's compensation taxes based upon the risk
factors of the occupation and environment - so there is precedent for that
sort of thing.

~~~
harryh
Worker's comp payments aren't really tax payments. They're insurance premium
payments to cover the costs of on the job injuries.

------
maxxxxx
I am little disappointed with Sanders that he has failed to build a real
movement. I like a lot of the things he does but he is pretty much alone.
Compared to the way Trump has bent the Republicans to his will it's
disappointing.

This is a nice stunt but nobody in Congress will have the balls to vote for
it.

~~~
mabramo
Why is your disappointment in Sanders? Do you not remember the momentum he
generated in 2016? Shouldn't your disappointment be directed at his peers?

~~~
maxxxxx
He didn't use that momentum to make a real impact. Now the democrats look as
clueless as they looked in 2016. They still don't have a real value
proposition other than not being Trump. They can't just stay being the party
for the upper middle class without appealing to blue collar workers. Say what
you want about Obama but at least he had a message.

Maybe Sanders never aspired to be a national leader and that should be
respected but it's still disappointing.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> He didn't use that momentum to make a real impact.

Sanders has used his platform to continue to advocate for Medicare For All,
for a $15/hr minimum wage (a concession he was able to get for Disneyland
employees), for renewable energy, for justice reform, for immigration reform.
What else would you suggest he do? He has been more positively impactful than
any politician currently in office except perhaps Senator Warren.

> Now the democrats look as clueless as they looked in 2016. They still don't
> have a real value proposition other than not being Trump.

Medicare For All, a $15 hour minimum wage, fully funded public schools and
universities, justice reform, immigration reform, paid family and sick leave
(not an exhaustive list) is not a value proposition?

Democrats clueless? Progressive candidates continue to win in elections at
every level. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is _crushing it_. As long as the
Clintons, Biden, and other moderates keep to themselves, we'll be fine.

~~~
maxxxxx
"Progressive candidates continue to win in elections at every level."

They are winning primaries so far. That's different from being elected.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Sure, but the signs are positive [1] [2] [3]. A government shutdown [4], more
Trump tweets [5], a Kavanaugh confirmation [6], still lots of foot guns for
Republicans between now and November.

[1] [https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17818204/midterm-2018-polls-
gen...](https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17818204/midterm-2018-polls-generic-
ballot-democrats) (New 2018 midterm poll has Democrats up 14 points on
Republicans)

[2] [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/democrats-
surgi...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/democrats-surging-
in-2018-national-polls-for-house.html) (With the Midterms Two Months Away,
Democrats Are Surging in the Polls)

[3] [https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/midterm-polls-
democr...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/midterm-polls-democratic-
advantage/index.html) (Democrats have double-digit advantage in midterm
elections, polls show)

[4] [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/trump-does-not-want-
governme...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/trump-does-not-want-government-
shutdown-over-immigration-before-midterms.html)

[5] [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-
ratings/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/)

[6]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/04/s...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/04/support-
for-republicans-and-for-kavanaugh-crumbles/)

~~~
maxxxxx
Be ready for another bad surprise like 2016. Leading in polls doesn't mean
winning an election. Democrats should have learned that by now.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Always ready for less than ideal outcomes. Hope for the best, plan for the
worst.

------
phyzome
Ha, I like it.

------
anonymous5133
So what exactly stops a "bad employer" from just putting more money into
automation?

~~~
dunpeal
If Amazon and Walmart could automate all these jobs, do you think they
wouldn't have already?

~~~
bertil
My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of
human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense.

In practice, it’s a little more complicated than that because automation
requires investments that are long to set-up, risky, etc. but there are
reasons to believe that this suggestion, if it passes would have two effect:

\- accelerate automation overall;

\- convince Amazon to employ directly more of its workers (they are typically
going through employment agencies at the moment) and re-think its schedules.
The dirty secret of that industry is that Amazon would like people to come at
certain hours but doesn’t really think beyond its operations, partially
because they have an arms-length relationship with temporary workers. Agencies
are all too willing to comply, and force powerless temp workers into the
grinder, arguing that they are just bowing to “the market”. The layers of
bureaucracy prevents Amazon from raising internally the point that shifts at
reasonable hours, with breaks. This means employees can think more critically
of their job, and contribute greatly to innovation.

~~~
dunpeal
> My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price
> of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense.

Human labor is so far behind machine labor, that raising its cost by a little
bit won't make much of a difference.

When it comes to manual labor, machines are so much cheaper, more efficient,
cheaper, less risky (medically, legally, criminally), stable, and reliable,
that there's no comparison really.

Big companies like Amazon therefore automate wherever they can already.

Based on articles about their fulfillment centers, the only jobs remaining
there are those robots don't do very well right now. These will eventually
disappear regardless of the passage of provocatively-titled PR-focused laws
(which probably won't pass anyway in current congress).

I'm not sure I understand your second point, especially how relevant it is to
the current discussion. This is about Amazon compensating employees with such
minimal and pay and benefits that they must seek welfare assistance and thus
effectively are paid by the taxpayer. Working conditions have nothing to do
with that, although (obviously) the same weak employees (or "contractors") who
receive so little pay will receive little consideration in these and other
regards as well.

~~~
bertil
Working conditions are directly related to pay: they are paid less not because
Amazon is going against the letter of the law on minimum wage but because the
agencies providing the workforce use extortionate techniques.

They make sure not to hit work-hour thresholds to owe employees full benefits.
In some areas, they demand that employees use a work-van to get there, and
they have to pay the driver absurd amounts to use that “service”.

Working conditions are so dire that the temp workers can’t offer suggestion on
working conditions, conditions that would help Amazon integrate better
automation in their current system, and make paying workers more comfortably
more sensical.

You can’t extract work problems from their context.

~~~
dunpeal
> Working conditions are so dire that the temp workers can’t offer suggestion
> on working conditions, conditions that would help Amazon integrate better
> automation in their current system, and make paying workers more comfortably
> more sensical.

Not sure I follow.

From reading articles about it, the "working conditions" are "dire" because
Amazon can press workers to work very hard (fill quotas) in large warehouses
that are barely suitable for human habitation.

Both of these are related to Amazon squeezing pennies out of
employees/contractors who have zero leverage.

The problem isn't that these employees can't offer "suggestions". Amazon knows
very well that if it lowered quotas, allowed more breaks, and added air-
conditioning to warehouses, working conditions will improve.

It doesn't do these things because these employees have zero leverage so
Amazon makes more money by not offering these improvements.

~~~
bertil
I don't think we disagree, but I'm not sure I get where you want to take this
discussion.

~~~
dunpeal
My point is that it's not some trivial issue of Amazon "not listening", or
anything else that is easy to fix.

The fundamental problem is that unskilled labor is very low value, and as
automation increases, will get even lower.

------
nappy
I don't understand this legislation or this perspective. If it is the job of
the government to provide a strong safetey net, then it shouldn't be incumbent
on private employers to do so. Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a
complete livelihood for its employees?

If a job is beneficially for the economy, and individual, and an employer,
though not enough to keep someone out of poverty - this is _precisely_ when
government programs should fill in the gap. And I would think should be the
perspective of someone who calls themselves a "Democratic Socialist."

A huge part of the problem with how healthcare and labor benefits are handled
in the United States is exactly this - that they are far to tied to an
individual's job. Divorcing them actually helps all parties. Most developed
nations operate this way.

Naming this legislation after Bezos is petty and vindictive. It's below the
office of a Senator, and a bad precedent to set to using the power of
lawmaking to single out individuals.

~~~
Udik
> Why should Walmart be tasked with providing a complete livelihood for its
> employees?

I don't think it should; but on the other end, why would people work for
Walmart if the salary it offers is not enough to survive? And why should
Walmart rely on the subsidies offered by the state to integrate the shitty
wages it's paying?

In other words, the employees work for you, you are the one who should pay
them- subsidies are altering this balance. (Ah, and tips too, my other little
obsession. Otherwise I'll bring my own waiter, thank you).

Of course the state should provide a "safety net"\- which for me includes
full, free, high quality medical assistance, education, and maybe some for of
low rent housing. But that's about it.

~~~
epicureanideal
Education is a tricky one. In general I tend to agree, but distributing the
cost of a person's decision to get a 4 year degree in Photography, and then
get a job at Starbucks they could've gotten without that degree, seems unjust
and unwise. And who decides which schools lead to good outcomes? A lot of the
"for profit" schools are only a little better than diploma mills.

------
epicureanideal
Hmm... This actually makes sense. And seems like it would make sense from any
party's perspective... Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green... If anyone
opposes this I'd love to know why.

But I don't see why Bezos in particular is singled out.

