Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Amazon Paid Zero In Federal Taxes In 2017" video.

  1. The US system. The poor are getting richer.
    4
  2. They have huge turnover rates due to temps.
    2
  3. Their workers get great benefits and stock options. They also get paid close to $20/hr in my home town.
    2
  4. There have been many recessions throughout the decades. You really need to study economics more.
    2
  5. "The Great Depression began in 1929, when Hoover was President" The recession started in 1929, under FDR it turned into a depression due to slow recovery. Many do criticize FDR for his actions. No other recession took that long to recover from except for the Great Recession of 2007. Both times were also the only times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with massive spending. "The unemployment rate ballooned, and then it peaked in 1933. FDR's New Deal helped the unemployment rate decrease after 1933." It went back up shortly afterwards. "Reagan was the one who wanted to implement trickle-down economics, and he did just that." We got out of a recession from the late 70s early 80s and had strong economic growth. "Reagan tried cutting taxes again in 1986. By 1990, we were in another recession. " Look at FRED data, we have had many recessions. We had one in the late 40s, twice in the 50s, twice in the 70s. etc. Recessions happen, how we recover is key. Under FDR and under Obama we had the slowest recover from a recession ever. "Bush (the second one) wanted to implement trickle-down economics as well, and he also did just that. " "Trickle down economics is not even an economic term. Under Bush you had the 9/11 attack but even at that there still was a strong economy. What hurt was low 20 year interest rates which inflated the housing bubble. The Fed did not raise interest rates. "What caused the bubble? " Low interest rates on housing. Again, study economics. It is clear you never studied economics.
    2
  6. "The New Deal helped put millions of Americans back to work. By 1937, the unemployment rate dropped to 14% (down from 25% in 1933). Not only that, but from 1934 to 1936, the economy grew at a rate of 9 to 12%. In fact, by 1936, the GDP had surpassed its 1929 levels." It didn't help as unemployment started to go back up and we had another recession. That is why it was called the "Great Depression", it lasted for nearly a decade. The New Deal created artificial growth as it was not long term and the economy crashed again. It was similar to the stimulus package and programs like "cash for clunkers" put for by Obama, it was not long term as those programs are never long term and thus you have limited growth. "It was already a depression BEFORE Roosevelt took office." No, it was a recession. It became a depression due to the longevity of it. "As for the recovery, if you think a country can quickly recover from a 25% unemployment rate in a short amount of time, you're not only stupid;" It has. It was close to that in 1921 where the government did nothing and within a year we recovered. Also, there is more to a recession than just unemployment. NBER uses that along with GDP growth, personal income, etc. I will give you several links to read in another comment. "The economic growth didn't start until AFTER Reagan undid most of his tax cuts in 1982." What? Reagan did not undo his tax cuts. " The difference is that these recessions (with the exception of the one in the 70s) were minor, and recovery was quick because of the New Deal programs that were in place." Explain the recession of 1921. Explain the Panic of 1873 and 1837. They were quick in recovery. "Don't give me any of that "trickle-down economics isn't even a real term" crap. It is just as dumb as communists saying "Stalinism isn't real communism"." "Trickle down economics" is used by either economic illiterates or politicians as it is not an economic term. Which one are you? "There was also the tax cuts from the early 2000s and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (which removed a lot of the regulations on Wall Street). Those two factors were far more influential in causing the late 2000s recession." Glass Steagall did not cause the recession and many experts agree. The tax cuts did not cause the housing bubble which was the major source of the recession.
    2
  7. Some links https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0892AUSM156SNBR Unemployment was going up. The gray area represents a recession. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA GDP growth was all over the place in that time, and again, that "recovery" was short lived where another recession happened. The war got us out of the depression. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/ The Glass-Steagall repeal did not cause the recession. Again, it would behoove you to study economics. You would realize how asinine your talking points are.
    2
  8. At the federal level I agree. A flat tax with a consumption tax is what we need. Or a tax on the states. Simplify the code.
    2
  9. This does sum Kyle up in a nutshell.
    1
  10. Kyle just begged his viewers for money for a new studio, this is what he eventually created. Kyle is lazy. That is shown by his studio and by the fact he says the same things over and over again.
    1
  11. John, he earns around $80,000 a year. He is wealthy because of his company. And yes, he did create a company where your lazy ass can buy something by a click of a button,what have you done?
    1
  12. No pitchforks as it isn't a big deal.
    1
  13. "How is the worst income inequality since the great depression NOT a big deal?" Due to something called "skilled biased technological change". The rich are getting "richer" because they have skills to develop a lot of wealth. However, the poor are getting richer as well. The poor today have it better off than the rich did in the 20s. Even at that income inequality is not that high. The top 10% earned only 40% of the income. And again, the reason why is because of "skilled biased technological change".
    1
  14. Jason, I am in my late 20s, I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry who is also taking MBA courses. I am quite smart. I can see that you have no counter argument besides questioning my intelligence.
    1
  15. Jason, I have been on here for less than an hour.
    1
  16. "- Not true. Wages have been stagnant since the early 80's. This is an empirically researched fact. " Not true for a couple of reasons. One, depending on what method of inflation you look at wages have either been stagnate or gone up. If you use the PCE or GDP deflator inflation rate wages have increased. There are multiple methods in measuring inflation. Also, it is difficult to account for improve quality when measuring inflation. For example, cars are more expensive today but are much cheaper overall due to begin safer, lasting longer and getting better mileage. "Skilled biased technological change is normal and a direct result of progress. " That has taken off due to the computer. "That actually makes the argument for a SUSTAINABLE living minimum wage, " The term "living wage" is subjective and thus meaningless. Anyway, increased technology leads to better goods and services that are cheaper which is similar to increasing wages. " In reality, it's the only way capitalism will be sustainable. " Not true. Capitalism is always sustainable as it accounts for the subjective nature of man. "when it takes 10 years of training to quality for an entry level job, people will need a universal basic income to subsist. " It doesn't take 10 years of training. There are still many entry level jobs, they just changed. For example, the people who work the front desk at my gym is entry level, they are not going anywhere. Increasing the min. wage does kill those jobs. " The top 10 percent hold approximately 76% of the wealth" Wealth does not equal income. Take Jeff Bezos, he earns $80,000 a year, that's it. However, he has so much wealth because of the stocks he owns in Amazon. He is valued that much. Those stock prices are worth that much because of how successful his business is. However, he does not have that much money. The average home owner has around 60% of their wealth tied into their home. The average home owner has 30 time more wealth than a renter. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to now wealth. Why? Because not everyone owns major shares for a large company like Bezos does. A person with zero assets and only $10 has more wealth than 25% of the nation. Why? Because many, like me, are in debt due to home loans or college loans (college loan in my case). Is that bad? No as it shows we allow people to regress in order to purchase major things and then progress forward. Pointing to wealth inequality is bad as you have to realize what wealth is. Bezos is worth a lot because of Amazon, not because of the money he has. He own shares in Amazon. However, if those shares were to be in someone's hands either than Bezos the company will lose value as they will not have the ability to keep the company valuable thus making them worthless. Wealth is highly subjective. But more importantly, wealth is not income.
    1
  17. "I thought it was becasue they buy off politicians to write loopholes and laws that benefit them over others, you know the very same thing Donald trump himself campaigned on and spoke out about..." Trump eliminated many loopholes. Even at that I agree, the loopholes need to go. That is a problem of government. That is why I support, at the federal level, a flat tax and a consumption tax, or a tax on the states like it was prior to 1913. "Lol the poor are not getting richer in the sense that you are implying, over half the country doesn't make more than 30k a year..." A very vague statement. I earn $23,000 a year and I am well off. Why? Because there are numerous factors to consider. Cost of living, if they have roommates or a spouse or are a teenage living with parents, etc. You can't just throw numbers out there and expect it to stick. You have to put them in perspective. Consider this, around 62% of the US population is working age (15-64). Out of that half earn $30,000 or less. That is 31% of the total population. The median income of those between 16-24 is less than $27,000 a year. About 11% make up that age range. So you have 20% of the nation, over 25 years of age, that earns less than $30,000 a year. And that is not including the unemployed. So there is some errors, but close enough. Now out of that 20% how many have spouses? You have to factor that in. How many live in rural areas with lower cost of living? Consider that WV is 3rd to last in median per capita income but is number 1 in home ownership rate. Again, stop throwing numbers around with zero perspective. "As for this idea that somehow the rich didn't make more money o could improve their situations or get richer in the 1920's is false. " My lifestyle is much better than that of a rich person in the 20s. I am more likely to live longer, I have a better car, a smart phone, high speed internet, etc. "slavery used to be a thing, should all poor black people who cannot afford to feed their children or keep their houses not care about that becasue hey, "slavery used to exist" so you could be worse off? " We should always push for improvement, but the point is that the poor are not getting poorer. Anyone who says that has no idea what they are talking about. If you want to have an actual, progressive conversation on these issues you have to be honest. You have to admit the poor have become richer over the years. Now have they become richer at a rate we would like? Now that is something we can discuss. But when you say they are getting poorer then I cannot take you serious.
    1
  18. Again, if you want to argue that the poor are not getting richer at a fast enough rate then sure, we can discuss that as I feel that is an issue. But you have to be honest and admit they are getting richer, not poorer.
    1
  19. "We aren't talking about inflation" So am I. As I said there are multiple measures in inflation and studies has shown that with two of them, the PCE and GDP deflator, that wages are going up. "We are talking about WAGES. The current minimum wage is not a living wage and measuring it has nothing to do with inflation. " I did bring up wages. Also, you are paid the market rate. It is up to you to find a way to live. The phrase "living wage" is subjective and means nothing. My living wage is much lower than that of a person with multiple health problems and a kid who has health problems. It is dependent on your situation and thus subjective. " This has nothing to do with inequality, but since you bring it up, the majority of cars still operate via gasoline - not sustainable in the long run and completely obsolete compared to electric cars. " A car today gets way better gas mileage than one in the 70s, that is the point. And this does have to do with inequality. Sure, Jeff Bezos is rich, but he provided an easy way for me to buy goods where I do not even need a car. He made my life easier. " OK, well let me objectify it for you. living wage: A wage, regardless of job title, that can support the minimum basic needs of an individual. The average minimum wage in America is $7.25. You can't survive on that alone. " Depending on my situation I can easily live off that much. So 7.25, let us say $6 to account for taxes and other expenses I may forget. At 40 hours a week, 4 weeks a month that is $960 a month. I will use my expenses. I pay $600 a month for rent. I will have to cut that down, there is a nice apartment that charges $545 a month with a shared kitchen. They pay all utilities including internet, so I pay $545 for rent, heat, electricity, water and internet. Food, I spend around $80 a month for that. I can cut that down (stop buying steak for example), but I will stick to it. So now at $625. I don't need a car, that apartment is within a 10 minute walking distance from work. Cell phone, I will keep my $90 plan just to jack my expenses up, so now at $715 a month (I can cut cell phone as well but nope). So my monthly expenses are $715 a month, I end up saving $245 a month. Now does that mean everyone can do that? No. Say if I had a kid, and I had to drive to work, and I was diabetic (or my kid was), now my expenses are much higher. It would not be healthy to live in that place. I would have medical expenses and a stricter diet. I will have gas and car expenses. This is why the phrase "living wage" is subjective. You say "basic needs", what are those needs? They vary by person. " That doesn't even make sense. We aren't talking about the nature of man" There is a subjective and an objective side to economics. With capitalism the people can decide how to spend their money the way it suits them. That is subjective in many ways. For example, if I buy a bottle of booze that is an investment to me, subjectively, but not for others. " If anything, this is an argument about the nature of capitalism, which is CONSUMPTION." Consumption of what? And how is that bad? "You missed the first part of that when I said "In the future" - being not now. If you really are as educated as you proclaim you are, then you will know what an exponential growth curve is and you will know how quickly it's accelerating. " Most entry level jobs are not going anywhere for decades, if not centuries. We will cross that bridge when we get to it. " I wonder how many people were saying that before the housing bubble burst in '08. Hint: It was a lot." Yes, the housing bubble did increase the wealth gap. "Bezos is worth 124.3 Billion dollars and hundreds of his employees are on food stamps - mic drop." He is worth that much because of stocks. Stocks are not food, you cannot eat them. They are simply shares of a company that retain value based on how the market perceives how much it is worth based on several variables. If Bezos were to sell of off his shares one of two things will happen 1. Even with all of the money he makes from selling it that does not increase the supply of food, so he won't be able to give food to his workers. 2. He could sell his stocks to someone who is not business savvy which will bankrupt the company and thus those workers will become unemployed. Even at that there isn't that much money out there to buy all of those stocks. That is how much he is worth.
    1
  20. Jason, please please please learn the difference between wealth and income and realize that Bezos only earns $80,000 a year.
    1
  21. "You also claimed you work at amazon. Are you doing both at the same time?" I said I did at one time. I was a temp worker there at a warehouse a few years back. I don't work there anymore.
    1
  22. Passerby1, it is true. The poor have it much better than the rich did in the 20s.
    1
  23. Passerby1, I earn $23,000 a year. However, my life is way better than someone who was rich in the 20s. Why? Because people in my position became richer. I would rather be poor today than rich in the 20s. Why? Because the poor became richer over the decades.
    1
  24. "so eventually you'll be rich?" Never said that. My life will get better. When I was younger I did not even have internet. I have it in the palm of my hand now. I can watch porn on my phone where in the past the phone I used had a long cord that stretched from the kitchen to the living room. It isn't about me being rich but me having a better lifestyle.
    1
  25. Cole Trickle, I know what inflation is. There are for measures of it, the CPI, the GDP deflator, the PCE and the PPI. Did you know that? Did you know that if you use the GDP deflator and PCE that wages have actually outpaced inflation? Now why the disparity? Because inflation is had to measure. Why? Because it is hard to take into account quality of goods. For example, a car is more expensive today than in the past. However, a car today last longer, gets better mileage and is safe, all of which saves money in the long run. A VCR cost around $1000 in the 80s. You had to connect it to the TV, had to rewind tapes, etc. Now you can watch movies on your smart phone, skip around easily, and watch almost anywhere, So by what metric? Many, including inflation.
    1
  26. Cole Trickle, the great depression happened in the 30s. The 20s were the "roaring 20s".
    1
  27. Watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FmhXQ32Wo&t=138s Again, did you know there were at least for methods in measuring inflation?
    1
  28. "You are not richer. Things became cheaper, and new things were introduced that became cheap. " Same thing. " capitalism and being in America has nothing to do with this we just went through an tech revolution" It played a huge role. " it has nothing to do with any inherent goodness of the system." It does in many ways.
    1
  29. "So do the RICH, hence why the gap between rich and poor has never been greater since the great depression." So? What's your point? The economy is growing. In fact, for years I have been hearing that talking point of the gap between rich and poor, still waiting for a depression.
    1
  30. "And all the wealth is shifting to the smallest percentage of people..." Not true. "We would have had one in 2008, the thing that stopped the country going off the edge was Obama and his increased spending." Actually the increased spending hindered growth. We saw around 2% growth. You will see under Trump that we will have more growth.
    1
  31. "And all the wealth is shifting to the smallest percentage of people..." To add to that no wealth is being shifted. Wealth is being created. There is not a finite amount of wealth (well, in theory there is due to a finite amount of resources, but that is only if you get 100% use out of all of your resources), wealth is growing. The poor are becoming wealthier. As I said, the poor have smart phones and better cars. They are wealthier.
    1
  32. "It actually is, you even admitted it. " I never did admit it. Read my new comment on how wealth is created, not shifted. "actually tens of thousands of jobs were being lost a day, the automotive industry (for example) was close to collapse, the unemployment was abysmal, etc. etc. there was no growth only collapse." It would have eventually stopped. The spending did nothing but hinder growth. The economy is not going to keep tanking. "While also dealing with all the other financial shit that was happening, so no freaking duh. " What financial shit? "We had growth under Obama," Around 2% is arguably not growth as it is very close to zero. In fact we never reached our potential unit 2015. There is a thing called "potential GDP". "in fact most of trump's economic success have nothing to do with him, the market was on an up and seeing record growth under Obama," Record growth, really? Now was there some growth prior to Trump? Sure, but now this is Trump's second year, this is his economy. Interest rates just went up because it is expected the economy is going to grow faster now. Anyway, if you want to credit Obama for this growth then you have to credit Bush for the stimulus as he signed it, not Obama.
    1
  33. "Wealth is being created but only passing to the hands of a few," So those new cell phones and better cars are not being seen by the middle and lower class? So I was one of the lucky ones that have a smart phone? "No they're not, not in the same way you're implying..." Yes they are. . "LOL that means nothing, becasue most of them can't or don't just buy those objects outright, they basically rent them, while paying off the price of the item over are period of months to years in dividends..." Nope, they buy them. There are other signs as well as most apartments have dish washers, AC and people have high speed internet.
    1
  34. "Suppose we have economic and technological growth under slavery, would that be an argument for slavery?" No, because slavery is forcing people to work against their will. That is a completely different topic. "And I'm not at all convinced that capitalism is the driving force of innovation" All throughout history it has been, and it is best for the most people. No system is ideal, but capitalism, the idea of it, is the best. "We're in digital age now because some guys in universities decades ago invented the technology we now use, that is computers and the internet. With public funding." The internet is what it is today because of capitalism. Same with computers. Capitalism created Google, Amazon, Youtube, etc. Our high speed computers are because of capitalism. The fact that you have a computer in the palm of your hand that has more computing power than what put a man on the moon is because of capitalism.
    1
  35. Leinja, slavery is a completely different topic all together. Slavery is forcing people to work against their will. In the end work has to get done, without slavery work will still get done. So whether or not technology grows or not is not the issue. At that point it becomes the ethics and morality behind slavery which is why it is a different topic.
    1
  36. Rock'on, again, slavery is a different topic. Slavery is forcing people to work against their own will. It treats people as property. It doesn't matter if you have a capitalistic or a socialistic system, both sides support freedom for the people. They oppose treating people as property and forcing them to work. Your definition of slavery is moving the goals points. What are "harsh conditions"? What are "low pay"? Also, are they being forced to work? As with how other countries treat their employees that is on them, not the US. I am looking at the US. Maybe that is a sign we should lower taxes and regulations and bring those jobs back here. Or you can also consider how developed we are as a nation and the fact that we give those jobs to underdeveloped nations like Bangladesh is giving those nations an opportunity to grow. Without those job making shirts those countries have nothing. You have to consider that as well.
    1
  37. Leinja, what goes on in the Soviet Union and China is different than from the US as they are still developing in many ways. When the US was developing we had jobs with "horrific conditions" (which is subjective) because we were developing. But also working conditions improved greatly under capitalism. How social liberalism came to be was government politicians realizing they can buy their way into office by promising free money to people. That has never been sustainable long term but it does motivate voters, who have little understanding of economics, to vote for them. The workers have always been able to protect themselves from the employers. In mining is a great example. Unions, free from government intervention, pushed to improve the safety in mining and deaths dropped a lot. " If there would be no welfare state to look after its people, " There is value in having government and having a social welfare system as long as it is localized. Problem is when it becomes too big. FDR created a huge welfare system which is why the recession he took over became a depression and took over 10 years to recover from. His welfare system hindered investment and growth. There is value in having a welfare system, but on the large scale it becomes a problem. You leftists always point to these problems of income inequality we have today. Consider these facts. 1. Since 1960 defense spending went from 10% of GDP to around 3%. 2. Since 1960 SS, Medicare and Medicaid all increased in spending in terms of percent of GDP. For example, SS went from around 2% to approaching 5%. The idea of cutting defense spending and increasing social welfare programs have been in place or decades. "The poor would have no choice but to accept the conditions capitalists (owners of the means of production) give them or face dying to hunger. " If working conditions are poor no one will work for them. You have to consider that. That is so in a developed nation. For example, my dad works at a factory that is very dangerous with lead in the air. That company has a hard time hiring people so they start their employees around $30/hr, give great benefit and stock options. If you look at the parking lot most of the employees have brand new cars as they can afford them. Will there be harsh working conditions? Yes. But due to competition businesses will have to pay more. "Other issues to consider" Each point 1. Wealth inequality is not bad. You have to learn what wealth is. Wealth is not income. Someone like Jeff Bezos is wealthy because he is the largest share holder of Amazon. However, Bezos only earns $80,000 a year. My boss earns that much as well. Beyond owning a home the average person has little to no wealth. Also, we have large wealth inequality because of loans. We allow people to go deep into debt with home loans and student loans which allows them to purchase something large and progress in the future. For example, I am well off with my own apartment, car, health, etc. However I have negative wealth due to my college loan. I, on paper, have less wealth than a poor guy in Ethiopia whose net wealth is most likely zero where mine is in the red. Now who has a better life? You can't just scream wealth inequality as if it is a problem. You also have to consider how much wealth. What is bigger? 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000? If I have 10% of the wealth and someone else has 90%, but that 10% is of 1000, I would take that over the 50% of 100. 2. Businesses have never forced someone to work for them. They are not tyrannical. You ask "Why shouldn't the workers own the place they work in? " To answer that they are not taking the financial risk. Also, many do not want that responsibility nor do they have the ability. Take Amazon for example. Many workers there have a GED at best. Do you want them making large financial decisions? Do you want them making critical decisions for the future of the company? Also, they, arguably, do own something. They own their labor and they decided to sell it to a business for an agreed upon rate. 3. "The studies saying sociopaths are over-represented high in the corporate ladder and politicians is no wonder to me." So, does that make them bad people? Again, businesses are not forcing anyone to work for them. For how bad Walmart and Amazon may be, I have never seen them hold a gun to someone's head and force people to work for them. "Koch brothers are a prime example of sociopathical behaviour: they fund climate change denialist propaganda for their own benefit despite the extreme implications of the climate change." As a scientist myself, who receives zero funding in making this statement, I can tell you that climate change is a complex issue. There exist a high level of doubt on what the implications actually are.
    1
  38. "Subjective, eh? Well experiences are subjective, you're not entirely wrong there. However..." It is subjective. It is safe to assume that 100 years ago people will view working conditions today as horrific. In the 1700s working conditions were horrific compared to the 1800s. Each point 1. The US was developing. We had limited jobs at the time and limited competition. Today we have more competition and better technology. Sure things were "horrific" then by today standards. But at that time that was the norm. At the time life expectancy was lower for several reasons. Infant mortality rate was higher due to the poor healthcare in comparison to what we have now. It wasn't just working conditions, it was everything. 2. Wages were low compared to what? 3. There were unions 4. Again, limited technology. That was the best they can offer. I can go on but here is the issue. You are comparing today's standard to that of the late 1800s early 1900s. We still have work related deaths. Why don't we eliminate all of them? Because there are many shortcomings that still exist. There are far less due to technological advancements, but they still exist. Why don't we just have a magical machine that creates all of the goods we need out of thin air? Because it does not exist. People still have to work. During the times you are looking at technology was inferior compared to today, or course working conditions were "horrific" by today's standards. But they improved over time due to technology. Do you really think businesses want dead employees? Do you think they want to deal with that, the families, the mess, and then training new workers? If you think so you are ignorant on the topic. As for child labor, yes, children worked more in that time. But due to advancements in technology less children work in general. Teenage unemployment is at an all time high. Amazon requires you have at least a GED to work for them. Mining companies pay well over $60,000 a year. They will not hired children. Due to our advancement college enrollment is growing and less children are leaving their parent's home. "Take that as you will." I am. Again, you are comparing standards of the early 1900s to now. That is why I said someone who is poor now is richer than a rich person from the 20s. "So I was talking about capitalism if there was no welfare to take care of the poor. " If no one is producing no one gets taken care of. Someone has to produce. There is desire to take care of the poor, but in the end what is best if for people to be producing. Take your situation to the extreme route where you give money to people who produce nothing, you just devalued money. But look at this, 15% of the nation is in poverty. Say you give that 15% money for producing nothing. The wealth we have in the nation is not what 100% produces for 100%, but what 85% produces for 100%. Capitalism motivates people to work and produce which generates more wealth to go around. Welfare programs don't. You are not helping anyone by just giving them money. You help them by making them produce. "And I also pointed out earlier in that post that during the industrialization those were pretty much the conditions (no welfare state) and as a result capitalists got to dictate terms and conditions. " As I told you, different times, different eras. Even the rich were not well off. Life expectancy was low for a reason.
    1
  39. " I suspect the wealthier one (usually the capitalist) would be in a favorable position as he can simply wait for the laborer to go hungry and be forced to accept capitalist's conditions" The only way someone becomes wealthy is when they provide something the people want. This is your gross misunderstanding of the issue. Jeff Bezos was not born rich. He did not shoot at some food and struck oil. He developed a company that provided for people. If that "wealthy" person just waited until people came hungry he will go broke. Wealthy people actually provide. If people are hungry and die then there will be no workers and no customers. If people are hungry then food places will lower prices due to decrease in demand and find a way to generate more food. You are making it sound like wealthy people are just born rich or magically obtained their money. They at not true. They did so by providing to people. "There's plenty of problems associated with wealth/economic inequality, take a look" It isn't that easy. Again, learn what wealth is. Bezos derives his wealth form Amazon' s shares. You can't eat shares, live under shares, warm your home with shares. Share are just the value of the company. If you were to give Bezos' company to some random joe, like you, the company will go bankrupt making it worthless. To look at wealth say you were to give two people the exact same home of same value. Over time one person will keep the home up to date and nice increasing the value (or at least keeping it the same) and the other person may ruin the home, letting it go to crap which lowers the value. Thus you have wealth inequality. What you are pointing at involves many variables besides wealth inequality. Bezos has a lot of wealth, but he made my life easier. So why should I care? That is the point. But again, please please please learn the difference between wealth and income. Bezos earns $80,000 a year, that's it. His wealth is derived from his company which will be worthless in other people's hands.
    1
  40. Again, please learn the difference between wealth and income. The reason why Bernie lost and why the majority are not taking the streets on this issues of wealth inequality is because it is not bad. Bezos is wealthy, but he made millions of lives easier. Stop being jealous and realize that. Realize how much is involved in this issue.
    1
  41. Ok, each point 1. "Why is taking or not taking a risk an issue?" It is a huge issue. You take the financial risk you have more at play. There are other factors as well. If you are a long term employee you have more at play. That is why many companies, like Amazon, offers stock options to employees that they can only take out after a set amount of years. Why? Because it shows you have a long term commitment. Now you point at one company that does it, great. I am not saying no company should do it. However, does a company who hires low skilled workers, with low education, and are short term want to act that way? Take, for example, McDonalds. Do you want the workers, who may not have a high school diploma, and may not even be there for a year, making important decisions? No. If you feel that way then run a company like that and I will guarantee you it will go bankrupt. Yes, there is a desire in having employees having more control. But those employees have to have something to lose. A part time, short term employee doesn't. Why should they make important decisions towards the company? If I were working at Amazon for a living I do not want some temp making important decisions. "Workers do own themselves but they do not own their labor. " They do own their labor which is why they get paid. What do you want them to have? Take my line of work for example. I do research. I use lasers to study molecular dynamics and structures, it is called spectroscopy. I take my work and publish it. Do I own it? No, the journal and university does. Do I care? No as I cannot sell my work to my landlord to pay rent. I give him money. In the end I am paid money. Same as with someone working at Amazon. What do they produce? Can they take what they produce and use it to pay rent? No they can't. They can with money. "The fruits of labor, surplus value, goes to the capitalist" I will address the "capitalist" remark you keep saying. You have no clue what it means. 2. To start, pothler54 is a journalist, not a scientist. I would take his scientific videos with a grain of salt. I have called him out on his practices on how he is condescending, goes after easy targets, and lacks a lot of understanding on science. Now for my field, I study physical chemistry and study structure and dynamics of biological materials. Is that related to climate change? Yes as it is a broad field. How so? Well consider this in climate change. It has been happening for over 4 billion years. The issue are 1. How much is man playing a role (it is based purely on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, now how much) 2. Is it even bad 3. If it is bad, what is the solution On the 2nd point, is it even bad, you have to consider how little we know about the environment. I study biological materials because we do not understand the energy pathway proteins and RNA take when it folds. That is why we do not have a cure of Alzheimer. I have friends (and colleagues in my field) who study photosynthesis. We do not understand how it works physically as in how the electrons are placed into a coherence and what pathway, energetically, they take in order give energy to plants. With our models photosynthesis should be very inefficient, but it occurs with around 90% efficiency. My "skepticism" of the climate change issue comes from my career in science and how little we know. This is why no scientists are making the claim politicians and the media are making about climate change. That is that climate change is a major threat and we need to act. You do not hear that from scientists but from only politicians and the media. 3. Working conditions, compared to standards today, were bad. But again, you have to consider the limited knowledge, technology and skills that existed. All conditions were worse off during that time, not just in working conditions. Again, that is why life expectancy was much lower those days than now. 4. I care about wages in the US, not England. 5. Again, I care about unions in the US 6. What makes you feel they had no consideration of the workers in that time? You have little evidence for that. 7. The industrial revolution was the time of development. There was lack of knowledge, skills and technology. Now you bring up regulations. OSHA did not come into existence until the 1970s. So what accounted for the decline in deaths prior to that? Worker working with companies. "The most successful effort to improve work safety during the nineteenth century began on the railroads in the 1880s as a small band of railroad regulators, workers, and managers began to campaign for the development of better brakes and couplers for freight cars. In response George Westinghouse modified his passenger train air brake in about 1887 so it would work on long freights, while at roughly the same time Ely Janney developed an automatic car coupler. For the railroads such equipment meant not only better safety, but also higher productivity and after 1888 they began to deploy it." I will give you the link later. 8. Again, I will address the work "capitalist" 9. $300,000 is nothing. Also, he had to grow that. It is safe to assume if you were given that money you would waste it. 10. How many homes does he own? How many are tied to his company? Even at that it does not matter. Who cares? He makes my life easier in shopping. 11. Why? Why is a large difference in wealth inequality a problem? You have never explained why? Again, if I own 10% of 1000 and someone owns 90% of 1000 I am better off than owning 50% of 100. I do not care if someone is wealthy if my lifestyle is much improves. Again, Bezos made my shopping lifestyle a lot easier. I am ordering two movies off of there tonight. 12. Bezos is one person who made hundreds of millions of lives better. That is not a problem. Also, I looked, he own 5 homes. Big deal. How many people can that house? Not many compared to the number of people he help make life easier. You are making it sound like he owns half of the homes in the US while others go homeless. 13. From his company. 14. I can argue you are "full of shit".
    1
  42. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-the-united-states-1880-1970/
    1
  43. "Workers and firms responded to these dangers in a number of ways. Some workers simply left jobs they felt were too dangerous, and risky jobs may have had to offer higher pay to attract workers. After the Civil War life and accident insurance companies expanded, and some workers purchased insurance or set aside savings to offset the income risks from death or injury. Some unions and fraternal organizations also offered their members insurance. Railroads and some mines also developed hospital and insurance plans to care for injured workers while many carriers provided jobs for all their injured men."
    1
  44. As for you "capitalist" comment. You are defining a "capitalist" as someone who is rich. That is false. I am a capitalist and so are you. How? You decide what companies to work for and do business with. For example, I decided to eat at Taco Bell the other day as opposed to McDonalds. I made the decision on my own free will as a capitalist. If Taco Bell does not serve me well I will not shop there. On the large scale they will go broke. That rich person owning that Taco Bell franchise will go broke unless they serve the people. You have no clue what these basic terms mean. A capitalist is someone who supports the free market, and by support that means through ideology or through actions. You can choose to use Amazon or not as you are a capitalist. Amazon is as big as they are because they served people. No one forced anyone to shop there as they had a choice between Amazon or other companies. Bezos did not get rich by waiting for people to starve. That is why I feel you are "full of shit".
    1
  45. " Railroads and some mines also developed hospital and insurance plans to care for injured workers while many carriers provided jobs for all their injured men." But they did not care about their workers according to you.
    1
  46. "A capitalist means the owner of means of production." I will link you the definition later. "Tbh, I have a rather hard time believing you are even part of the academia, in any way." Why? Because I am not ultra liberal? There are more conservatives and moderates (which I am that) than you think. " You hand waved the working conditions during the industrial revolution " I did not hand wave them. I told you the truth about how there are many factors that influenced the poor working conditions. Lack of technology, skills, knowledge, etc. Did greedy business owners play a role? Sure. During that time I will agree because of lack of ability for people to move or obtain knowledge. Today, with technology, people have the ability to move easier and obtain information easier. Here you have Kyle giving information on how Amazon runs giving people the choice to either shop there and/or work there. But it was not the only factor, and arguably not the major factor. I just gave you a link showing how may workers pushed for safety and companies followed suit. " your explanation for how social liberalism came to be was bollocks " How so? That is a legit argument made by many economists and political experts. The founding fathers wanted limited government for a reason as they knew government can become corrupt and powerful but hid it by promising handouts. Government can very well buy votes with handouts, especially in harsh economic times. " you say wealth inequality (part of economic inequality) doesn't matter despite being pointed otherwise" You never pointed to me otherwise. There is a lot to wealth inequality. I told you where Bezos derives his wealth from, from shares of his company. Can you eat those shares? Can you live under them? Can you run your car on them? No. Understands what shares are and why they are valued so high for Amazon. It isn't like Bezos is hoarding all the food, homes, cars, resources, etc. and no one has access to them. He derives his value from his company. Compare it to this, Bezos has a warehouse in KS that covers 855,000 acres. That warehouse is worth a lot as it is a part of Amazon. There is an old factory in my hometown that is just as large but produces nothing. It is worthless as no one is willing to buy it because it produces nothing. Both places take up the same amount of space, but one is worth way more because it actually produces. You see the difference? " implying that Bezos lives like an average Joe " Never said he did. "No, you are no academic at all, I smell the stench of a free market propagandist." To be honest a lot of people in academics think like me, like most MBA professors for example. "Not only that, but you are also a climate change "skeptic"." Being skeptical is a major part of science. I laid out the issues with climate change. I told you why I feel that way. Your only counter argument is to insult me. Many scientists are skeptical on climate change. " Btw, Potholer is not just a journalist, he has a degree in geology," He is a journalist. Yes, he has a degree in geology, but he has never done any research in the field, never published any work in the field, and as a geologist he never studied, in depth, physics.
    1
  47. Here is the definition https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalist
    1
  48. Here is a good article to read on photosynthesis http://www.nature.com/articles/nature05678?foxtrotcallback=true&error=cookies_not_supported
    1
  49. We know very little about the ecosystem. To make a radical conclusion on climate change is showing a high level of ignorance in science.
    1
  50. Leinja, you refuse to accept basic definitions. That is an issue. "Too bad the scientific community disagrees with you," How? " there's practically no debate anymore within it about whether climate change is occuring and whether human activity plays a significant role causing it." Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. And yes, man does play a role. I said that already. Point to me where I said 1. Climate change is not happening and/or 2. Man is not playing a role Please point to me where I wrote that. I would be excited to see my mistakes.
    1
  51. Bezos is not sitting on 100 billion dollars.
    1
  52. I support a simplified tax code at the federal level so this would not happen. As for shifting the burden, if you raise taxes on the rich they will shift the burden on the middle and lower class. The best federal tax code is a flat tax and a consumption tax, or a tax on the states. What happened here is a great example when you increase the power of the federal government and ask for a complex tax code. Trump and many on the right want a simplify tax code.
    1
  53. I will continue to shop at Amazon as it is a great company. Serves the customers well and at one point gave me a job at one of their warehouse. Great company.
    1
  54. Leftists here do not see you logic. The see Amazon, being as big as it is, and feel they need to tax them at 90%. They do not care about anything else.
    1
  55. I worked at Amazon, they treat their workers well. Stock options, great benefits, nice pay.
    1
  56. Rob McCune, I worked there as a temp a few years ago over a summer and over the holiday. I don't work there anymore but did for a few months
    1
  57. Rob McCune, a English lesson for you, "worked" is past tense.
    1
  58. Gage, it is very relevant, especially property tax. Local communities need the funds more.
    1
  59. Ok, and? For over 100 years corporations and businesses paid $0 in federal taxes, individuals didn't either. I have no problem with this.
    1
  60. What's your point? There is way more to it than the president. The Great Depression happened under FDR. Under Reagan you had a democratic congress. Under Clinton you have a republican congress. The Great Recession occurred when Democrats took control in 2007. Again, study economics. There is a lot to it.
    1
  61. "The recession of 1937 was the result of FDR cutting spending, because a lot of people feared that he was spending too much on his New Deal programs." He was spending too much as he was not creating wealth. He had to cut back and a recession happened. Why? Because government spending like that is not long term, it never it. It is dropping money from a helicopter. "In 1931, Hoover literally used the word "depression" to describe the economic situation at the time." So? "In 1921, the unemployment rate was about 10%. It's a lot easier to bounce back from a 10% unemployment rate than it is to bounce back from a 25% unemployment rate." It was closer to 17%. "Yes, he did. Have you ever heard of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act? That was a piece of legislation that Reagan signed in 1982, which undid most of the 1981 tax cuts." I have heard of that. It did not increase the top marginal tax rates and did not increase income taxes. You are also forgetting that Reagan only signed the bill on the idea that Congress cut spending as well. You have to factor that in as well. But I bet you choose to ignore that or did not know. There is more to the economy than just taxes. "This was also the first of ELEVEN times that Reagan raised taxes throughout the 80s." Again, there was a spending aspect as well where Reagan worked with a moderate democrat congress. Just like Clinton worked with a moderate republican congress. You are placing a lot of blame on the president while ignoring congress bud. Who controls the purse? "No, they weren't quick in recovery at all. " They were, less than 5 years. The Great Depression took over 10 along with the Great Recession. Those are also the only two times the federal government tried to "fix" the economy with spending. There is a strong correlation there. I bet if FDR cut spending and the recession happened you would be singing a different tune. Instead you aren't. Again, the two times it took the longest to recover from a recession were the Great Depression and the Great Recession. They were also the only two times were the federal government tried to "fix' the economy by spending. Every other recession they didn't and we recovered in 5 years or less. There is a strong correlation there. "Which "experts"? The people at Fox News are not experts. " I posted two links, none from Fox News.
    1
  62. Again, please study economics.
    1
  63. solrinin, it was one of many factors that caused the Great Recession. There were many factors involved. Did Glass Steagall play a role? sure, but by how much you cannot say as many factors played a role. Even Elizabeth Warren said it wasn't that simple, that the Glass Steagall subject was a simple rally call to motivate voters to support her. The Glass Steagall repeal did great things. For example, banks were not allowed to bank over state lines such that if a bank was going to fail it would be isolated in a state. There are advantages, these days, of having large banks. Someone with a Wells Fargo account can bank almost anywhere now with may Wells Fargo. I read the article and I agree with it. Glass Steagall did play a role, but so did many other factors. And yes, Glass Steagall was pretty much gone by the 70s. The overall point is that whenever someone brings up Glass Steagall and nothing else they are ignoring the complexity of the economy. SodaBoy628 is doing that. It isn't that simple.
    1
  64. solrinin, it is similar to how when someone rips on the president for economic issues while ignoring Congress. SodaBoy628 is talking about Reagan's tax plan from 1982 while ignoring the idea that Congress agreed to cut spending along with it. There is a lot to the economy.
    1
  65. solrinin, to add, when I come to these comments I see a lot of talking points and my response is mainly to show there is way more to the issues than just talking points. Take Sodaboy628 for example. He used the talking points of "trickle down economics" and "Glass-Steagall repeal" and "New Deal" and "Tax cuts" etc. There is so much more to it. My whole point on those articles is to show that the Glass-Steagall repeal was not the main factor in the recession. Maybe it was, but one cannot say. Did it play a role? Arguably yes, but it was one of many. Just pointing to it, to me, is displaying a high level of economic illiteracy on the issue.
    1
  66. SodaBoy628, some reports had unemployment at 17%. And the panic of 1873 took around 5 years to recover from. Again, study economics. Noticed how I actually linked data and articles and you haven't.
    1
  67. SodaBoy628, and again, there are other factors to include when defining a recession besides unemployment.
    1
  68. http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan08bcdc_memo.html
    1
  69. No he not.
    1
  70. They are now but still around a 1 to 2 percent profit margin. So still low.
    1
  71. It is arguable that there shouldn't be a corporate tax to begin with. I am in favor, at the federal level, for a flat income tax and a consumption tax, or a tax on the states like we had pre-1913. It is simple and fair.
    1
  72. They do leave.
    1