Bezos Bows To Pressure On $15/hr. Keep Pressuring Him. Keep Pressuring Them All.
In a move that is being widely attributed to pressure from activists and Bernie Sanders' famous Stop BEZOS Act, Amazon has announced a pay increase for all workers inside the US to $15 an hour as of next month.
Which is of course a good thing. It is a good thing that the aggressively anti-union Amazon, which is owned and operated by the planet's wealthiest man Jeff Bezos, is finally taking a step in the direction of treating its workers like human beings after the sound of sharpening guillotine blades began to echo off the walls of its warehouses. But that isn't something people should be grateful for, let alone something that causes them to ease up the intensity of the fight against plutocracy. You don't thank a man for ceasing to punch you in the face, especially not while he's still stabbing you in the chest.
Institute for Local Self-Reliance co-director Stacy Mitchell has as usual provided some useful insights into this new development in Bezos' master plan, pointing out how Amazon is now slashing stock options for some workers, how Amazon workers in Australia already make 18.26 USD per hour, how this concession is largely being made out of fear of an antitrust case which could break up the massive corporation, how this won't pose much of a challenge for Amazon as it is steadily increasing its automation of jobs, and how this is ultimately just a small band-aid on a gaping wound because no company should ever have this much power. Mitchell described last year how Amazon is not merely working to kill off competition and dominate online product sales, but is actively working to control the underlying infrastructure of the economy itself.
In an article titled "Bezos’ Decision to Raise Wages is Largely a Machiavellian Distraction", political blogger Michael Krieger observes that Bezos is also calling for a nationwide wage hike, which Amazon would be far more capable of absorbing than its competitors. Amazon can move into automation at a speed other companies won't be able to afford to keep up with, and can thereby use this maneuver to shore up its domination even further.
"You really think Bezos is advocating for a national minimum wage increase because he’s suddenly a Bernie Sanders populist?" Krieger writes. "Don’t be stupid."
Yes, please don't be stupid. Jeff Bezos is an extremely dangerous plutocrat who is forming extensive ties with secretive government agencies while buying up media influence and working to control the way money itself moves and operates in the world. He is most certainly nowhere near anything like a Bernie Sanders populist, and his plans for our species include shipping all heavy industry along with a trillion humans off of our planet's surface to inhabit the greater solar system. He wants a trillion human beings out in space toiling to fuel his insatiable capitalist empire while his heirs continue to inhabit the beautiful home for which our species is evolutionarily adapted.
Seriously, check it out: Bezos has openly described this as his grand plan for our species, and said this is why he sees his private space program as the most important work that he is doing currently. He wants a trillion humans working in space colonies while perhaps a lucky billion (0.1 percent) of them get to inhabit our beautiful blue planet, and you can be damn certain that he has no intention for his heirs to be among the 99.9 percent.
That's it. That's his whole vision. That's the best possible future we can hope for if we leave control of our species in the hands of the plutocratic class. Not a future in which humanity learns to peacefully coexist with itself and the ecosystem on its home world, but a future in which a trillion of us are bred to turn the gears of the Amazon empire in outer space. Personally I think a much better vision would include shipping Bezos off to space right now, by himself, never to return.
We mustn't ease off the revolt against the plutocracy just because the richest man in the world decided to give his workers what only amounts to a living wage in some parts of America. The fact that a plutocrat made a small concession is not a sign that it's time to stop fighting, it's a sign that fighting works. That fight must be continued until the plutocratic class no longer controls the fate of our species and our beautiful blue planet, until such time as humanity is able to control its own fate in the interests of all living creatures.
Don't turn our fate over to depraved oligarchs for the price of a few dimes. Keep pushing these sociopathic bastards. Keep pushing them right off the stage.
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal,buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Great article, well argued, as usual. I largely disagree.
First, I'm no fan of Jeff bezos, so none of what I say should be construed as an endorsement of him, and I am also worried about his ties to the intelligence agencies.
I agree with the article you cited which is that Bezos is pushing for a $15 minimum wage because it will help consolidate the market in his favor. A minimum reduces jobs, and makes it difficult to find entry level employment. Most people are not making minimum wage. Those that are are mostly people who are just trying to enter the job market for the first time. For them, getting job experience - any job experience - is crucial. Raising the minimum wage takes away that opportunity.
Of course, that being said, when you're talking about careers, rather than relatovely short term employment, it is sometimes necessary for people to collectively negotiate with their employers. I do not agree with the special rights many states give to unions. Business owners are not slaves. You should not leverage the state against them to force them to run their business in a certain way. But it's entirely valid for people to negotiate as a group.
As far as us going to space. It's highly important that we become a multi-planetary species. I'm not sure I'd want Bezos to be in charge of that, but it's crucially important that we do that as quickly as possible. If humanity is confined to earth it will lose its enterprising spirit and succumb to tyranny. And if anything then happens to planet Earth, that could mean the end of humanity. We need to pass the birth canal and cut the umbilical cord.
Posted using Partiko Android
So how is scarcity of employment working in his favor, wouldn't an employer want a surplus of labor to chose the workers that create the least overhead?
And?
Why and how is the demand for workers by businesses going to be affected negatively by a minimum wage?
Posted using Partiko Android
crickets?
No, I read your comment earlier but didn't have time to respond. That empty comment was made by mistake.
Posted using Partiko Android
Scarcity of jobs is great for Bezos. It's terrible for people seeking employment. If businesses have to shut down because they can't afford to hire people, then Bezos consolidates marketshare. Of course, this also means that there are fewer opportunities. When there are more jobs than there are workers, wages rise as a consequence. When wages are artificially raised, this creates a barrier for entry for entry level work. This means that employment rates decrease, which means that the economy shrinks overall, since people have no money to buy things at all, thus further damaging the job market. What typically happens then, is that the government borrows vast amounts of money to fund benefit programs. This artificially stimulates the economy, but it doesn't make people more productive, and thus, the growth is fuelled by debt, while the unemployed remain unemployed and become gradually less employable, as they become less and less desirable as employees. What's worse, this creates inflation, which reduces the buying power of the dollar. So, ultimately, that raise you forced businesses to give to everyone now means nothing, because the value of the dollar has decreased. So now, there are fewer people working, and the people that are still working are not actually better off, and you've also blown up the national debt.
Let businesses offer the wages that they are willing to offer, and remove barriers to entry for entrepreneurship. That maximizes the potential for job growth. When you do that, wages rise, because now there are more jobs than there are workers.
Posted using Partiko Android
It's not scarcity of employment, it's scarcity of employees.
If businesses cannot pay people they have no business.
Indeed when there are more jobs than there are workers the business will need to pay people more to compete for the scarcity of workers.
The supply doesn't dictate the demand, the scarcity of employees creates more pressure for higher wages, and again if the business cannot take advantage of a surplus of workers then they are going to have to increase the wages, yet if it's a surplus of workers business will not increase wages.
When wages are increased, the demand for entry level work doesn't dwindle.
If employment rates are decreased because of an artificial increase of the wages and the subsequent businesses who relay on a surplus of cheap labor created by the underlying surplus of workers go out of business then the demand for the work will still be there albeit that now the services and products from those entry level position will become more valuable and other business will take advantage of the demand, which is independent of supply, if those initial business didn't already consolidate the increase overhead to their consumers.
If people are competing for peanuts, peanuts will not make more jobs.
The consequences you speak about, such as inflation and unemployment benefits aren't consequences of an artificial increase in wages, they are the consequences of FIAT itself and unemployment benefits come from people who earned them through the taxes paid into social security, by them.
If people are driven to bid lower and lower for work the businesses benefit directly while there is no need for more jobs. If we let monopolies control any one sector, or let businesses exploit the constant surplus of employees then clearly they will become more and more efficient at exploitation.
Posted using Partiko Android
Minimum wage increases without fiat (that is, with a commodities backed currency) create consequences that are more immediate and pronounced, because the creation of welfare programs to compensate for the decrease in demand for labor is not possible without government debt instruments, and if the government devalues its currency, people demand the commodity over the currency, and the currency loses its backing and collapses. The same thing happens with fiat; it just takes a little longer, because it's a little more difficult (but certainly not impossible) to exchange the fiat for a stable form of value.
Demand for entry level jobs will always be there, but the higher the barrier for creating those jobs, the fewer there will be, which means that some people just won't be able to get jobs at all. This is not merely my opinion:
https://www.epionline.org/studies/r129/
http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/03/harvard-study-minimum-wage-hikes-cut-entry-level-jobs-harm-poor-minorities/
Those are the top two links on Google (which is a heavily left-leaning search engine).
There is another study I found in the top five that I can't share here, but it's a PDF that says the same thing. The other two links in the top five claim that minimum wage hikes don't have an effect on job growth, but, firstly, they are editorials, not scientific papers (which tend to supporty point), and they also fail to mention that, yes, it's true that minimum wages don't ALWAYS kill job growth - but only if they aren't OUTPACING job growth. But if the job market is growing relative to the pool of employment seekers, then wages will rise anyway. So minimum wage hikes don't cause overall wages to rise, and they certainly can cause job growth to stall - especially if they are raised dramatically (and a $15 minimum wage would be a dramatic increase).
Posted using Partiko Android
Excellent, here it is for you die hard crapitalusts who think that "government is the source of monopolies" and fail to grasp that without anti-trust laws (exactly what are you idiot nonsensical anarchists going to argue when "no victim, no crime" is the henchmen's axe to your neck?) and a working justice system to enforce them, the concentration of wealth and thus the power which comes with it will undubetly create a "free market" dystopian environment where we can only hope or pray that there's a semblance of sensibilty such as the directives"ethics" Wall-Esque's Buy-n-Large implemented. @larkenrose
;) @uvas the incessant trololol of "Microsoft got it's monopoly through patents and copyright" and "Amazon doesn't have a monopoly over publishing despite controlling over 70% of the market, because after all how much longer can you deny the obvious".
Amazon is going to be making some insane crypto plays in the near future. If any corporation has a chance of becoming "The Company" featured in the Aliens sci-fi movie series, it's Amazon.
They've already have created a digital currency by buying Twitch and creating Twitch Bits. They are one small step away from creating their own cryptocurrency and bringing their worldwide influence up to an entirely new level.
This IS easing off the plutocracy!
Minimum wage is a tool of the manipulators!! .....you know - the ones you wrote against only a few days ago!
Leftist ideology is corrupt, illogical, and dying. Wake up.
You're ideology is blinding you to your own intelligence...
Minimum wage is a tool of the manipulators? Because they aren't all for taking advantage of the massive surplus of laborers who are willing to work for peanuts, but I digress, let's hear your reasoning behind such assertion. While we're at it, what do you think of anti trust laws?
if you are subsidized by the governments you are part of the manipulators - any transfer of wealth has already begun from the taxpayer.
Minimum wage is a manipulation of an economy - which is just varying degrees leading to socialism /communism.
Anti trust laws are an extension of allowing monopolies in the first place, which is a result of corruption via government and business - it all leads back to the banks either way.
Standard oil for example.
No corruption via regulation = no monopolies.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html
Socialism\communism is the ownership of the means of production by the people, and consequently in America, FIAT is the ownership of currency by "the people", so if you're trying to "omg those commie's" you need only to wonder what exactly FIAT is.
As for minimum wage, as well as anti trust laws, it's indeed a manipulation of the economy, yet you've not explained or demonstrated why and how it inverably leads to socialism. I'll say it again, the manipulators would have no problem with paying people as little as they can, which is exactly what happens when a surplus of labor can bid to work for peanuts, and then having labor laws creates a scarcity of labor, as does "a 40 hour work week" and child labor laws.
The point again is that you DON'T HAVE A CHANCE IN HELL AT DEMONSTRATING OR EXPLAINIG why and how that assertion is true or correct, as it applies to your ENTIRE comment which so far is only one assertion, baseless and meaningless, following another, spawned by the flurry of them in your initial comment, and as the saying goes, I needent explain or demostrate anything in the face of baseless assertiveness, I only need to deny or ask how and why that assertion is so, to which the silence will reverberate echoing back the voidnees of reasoning behind them and making the equivocal statement that if you could have fulfilled the onus of proof firstly and you chose not to then you are content with vain talk and care not for substance.
Anti trust laws are there to break up the chokehold one entity has over any one sector of the economy so that the market isn't raped. Thales recognized that 25 centuries earlier and he realized a complete, total monopoly without any law to his benefit, only resources and forethought.
More assertive nonsense.
Her ideology? You're so lost in the sauce you can't even see that regardless of how many ellipsis you use to insinuate and imply instead of explaining and being forthcoming with reasoning to the flurries of assertive nonsense and accusatory shinola drifting in their wake, she didn't even state her ideology and even though you've clearly not a grain of sand worth of sense to comment on her intelligence, your "prompt" for waking up to the other side of the coin from "leftist" ideology is the entrance to the very insanty of hegelian dialect reaction- problem- solution- that bipartisan politics has morphed from over the last 200 years, where left and right is simply a divide and conquer tactic over the same special interests that have controlled Anerican government through out it's relatively brief existence and which still consolidates it's power from the same age old mantra of controlling the money supply to control government, which need be I can quote the genuins behind the declaration of Independence and his stance on taxes to enjoy the silence that seeks only to leave you asleep and fully confident that you're awake.
#sheepishAF
....I Agree
....so a minimum wage is not manipulation (control), how?
How are minimum wage laws and their predecessors, anti trust laws, consolidating the control over the money supply of the special interests of bankers and why when clearly they not only create more opportunty in the face of exploitation over a surplus of labor but also invite competition in the face of consolidated power?
Central banks control the money supply - and the value of money.
Dress up the propaganda to fool the masses s much as you like, this is a fact.
If you control the money supply and it's value (communism), you control everything else.
You control minimum wage - and how much it's worth - you control social unrest and social success. You control governments and the redistribution of wealth.
You control everything.
'They' give nothing away - ever - they just play a longer game to acquiring more assets.
See the bigger picture, and not the details you are told to look at, and then where to focus all your attentions (wasted energies?) on..
I couldn't agree more yet clearly by your own premise they need nothing more, so the question remains. Also to make a subsequent point, the value of money is dictated by public sentiments:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-fake-money-saved-brazil
The issue isn't FIAT or the overly simplistic premise of "controlling the money".
The bigger picture here involves actually forming an cogent argument that has some substance, instead of resorting to ONLY silly assertiveness.
Posted using Partiko Android
Why are you asking me that? And .... is the relience on ommision to insinuate which has no place in a conversation, in my opinion.
...If you're at a poker table and you don't know who the 'donkey' is, it's probably you...
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/session-2-fixing-your-own-mental-illness-know-thyself
Actually the question is quite formidable and prompted by the insinuating question you asked and no amount of finger pointing and name calling will change it, and especially so since you've demonstrated a habitual need to rely on ellipsis and assertions without essence. I will follow your link, I'm interested in what you think adds value to my life, psychologically speaking.
Posted using Partiko Android
I should probably tag the monumental narcasistic idiot who bleets governmentatesDePortlandusZaCementorius @builderofcastles so he can chip in from the unipolar and generic standpoint that capital is a solution and not a decisevly insipid setup to trade our worth for shit in classism dating back to Summer and which has seen no end to strife born out of it's designed scarcity.
Oh, on a total side note - did I mention you've been mentioned in dispatches?
You seem to be the only officer who knows what he's doing.. lol
https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/quantico-campaign-underway-kind-of-the-forces-part-1-ulog-4
Turd briggade, I like it!
From my article "How to Avoid Funding the American Deep State":
'In addition to all the closed-source alternatives there are to Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, etc., there's OpenBazaar. It's open source and peer-to-peer, and there are no fees. You can only pay with cryptocurrencies though.
There's also BriskSale.
"We have been considering making BriskSale open-source. There’s a chance we will in the future, but for now it’s private." - Ryan Speier, founder of BriskSale
BriskSale doesn't charge sellers listing or sales fees. You can offer a commission though, in which case BriskSale and BriskSellers will race to find a buyer. But, at the moment, there's a catch:
"To ensure maximum visibility, every item listed on BriskSale is automatically uploaded to the Google Shopping network."
BriskSale pays Google for that, so: https://www.brisksale.com/contact-us'
Yes, the fight must continue! Let's see how many of his employees are actually getting $15 an hour a year from now. Healthcare benefits???
dsfsd
Great article - thank you for calling out greedy billionaires like Jeff Bezos & his poor treatment towards workers whose hard work help his company to be a success.
I wonder if you could take the time to read my article on Seven & her court case win in UK in 2006 against numerous TV networks who stole her Intellectual Property for shows like Strictly Come Dancing, Dancing on Ice, Dancing with the Stars, who've yet to pay her compensation or give her back her Intellectual Property Rights. They have also & still are to this day engaged in acts of terrorising Seven for the last 15 years, attempts on her life because of her landmark court case win.
I would appreciate it if you could report on her case which includes Virgin Media & Richard Branson using stolen money from other people including Seven to buy parts of the NHS and privatise it.
Here is my article on her case: https://steemit.com/strictlycomedancing/@scribendocogito/strictly-secret-the-creation-of-strictly-come-dancing
It's included in the article but here is Seven's court case evidence: http://thefarrellreport.net