Amazon HQ2 and other news
Comments
-
If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.0 -
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.0 -
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.CM189191 said:
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.0 -
REgarding the net worth vs income, that's an interesting point. Much of Bezos's wealth is on paper, in the form of options or vested shares. My guess is his income is on the lower side. CEOs often have incomes of $1.CM189191 said:
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.0 -
And there it is. The communism boogeyman.mrussel1 said:
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.CM189191 said:
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.0 -
mrussel1 said:
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.CM189191 said:
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.
No Lada in your future...Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Yes I know.cincybearcat said:
No they said the average salary for the 25,000 new jobs.PJ_Soul said:
Using an average salary for a company like this isn't the greatest method. Remember that the multi-million dollar salaries of the big cheeses and the big 6-figure ones are included in that number and REALLY jacking up that number. That makes it so that the average isn't at all representative of what most employees earn.mrussel1 said:
It's an average. As I pointed our earlier, I can understand why NYC might have rent, displacement and other issues based on the influx of this many high paying jobs. But it also generates enormous ancillary economic activity. It's why I'm completely astounded by Aocs celebration of 25k jobs exiting the city. Makes no sense. Virginia is still pleased with the deal.Halifax2TheMax said:
Admin assistants aren’t making $150K and I find that to be a high average. Good jobs, sure but $150K in NYC, even LIC isn’t great with cost of living. I don’t know about $3BB in tax breaks/credits really makes it worth it when the infrastructure can’t handle the 25,000 influx. Did NY or any of the other locations release impact studies?mrussel1 said:
That was the guarantee from Amazon for Virginia and NYC. I believe Tennessee too. These were good jobs.Halifax2TheMax said:
Where are you getting the $150K average salary from?mrussel1 said:
Virginia only offered 500 million in incentives. Considering 25000 jobs at an average of 150k per year, it won't take the state long to be on the plus side of that equation, between 2 and 3 years only calculating state income tax, not even considering the economic growth the 25k people will create. It's an easy decision.dignin said:
In order to be competitive they have to, that's the problem. Corporations like these have governments by the balls, that's terrible for the taxpayer.mrussel1 said:
No one made the state offer tax breaks.my2hands said:I've flipped on this...
Fuck Amazon and the rest of these corporate welfare bloodsuckers
Getting governments to slit their own throats to undercut other governments. I don't blame Amazon for being immoral here and not paying their fair share. Most large companies do this. It's the governments fault for letting it get to this. At some point they all need to stand up to these corporations.
And also, Amazon has a terrible track record with how they treat their employees who work in their warehouses. So fuck them for that too.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
So this is the interesting part. I don’t think the government having the $ means we have the $. It should. But it doesn’t always. It certain hasn’t in many other countries. Although there are examples where it seems to work for the people in their countries too.dignin said:
You mean us right? Because the government is essentially us. So yes, it is better that all of us share in that wealth.cincybearcat said:bootlegger10 said:
So is the wealth disparity an issue or just inevitable?cincybearcat said:Interesting thing I read... Bill Gates didn’t start his foundation and all his giving until after leaving Microsoft.
People love to talk about how great Gates is....and he seems to do a lot of good work. They’ve compared Bezos to Gates here. But are they that different st this point? Maybe when Bezos leaves amazon he will do the same with all that $.
I guess we will wait and see.
is it actually better for the government to gain all that wealth?hippiemom = goodness0 -
It's not a boogeyman, it's recognizing human nature. How many Soviet era innovations do we have today? Not many. They had zero consumer contributions and the military advancements were stolen.dignin said:
And there it is. The communism boogeyman.mrussel1 said:
If you take the financial incentive out of innovation, why would one choose to innovate? Why not be lazy and wait for the handout? You know communism has been tried a few times, without success.CM189191 said:
That's one person. Now do the top 10%.pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.
You're confusing net worth with income, so the whole point is moot anyhow.
Counterpoint: redistributing income has a direct positive impact on homelessness, hunger, poverty community health and infant mortality rates.
My statement is not an indictment of progressive tax system, which I fully support, but there's a limit. Don't ignore the 50 year economic disaster of Russia.0 -
Yes this makes sense and is a reasonable thing to consider. I personally still have a problem with the government taking $ that people earned just because they died. That’s a terrible thing really imo. But I’d be willing to consider something that still ensures the family left behind still benefits to a high degree. Cause that dead family member sacrificed I’m sure for that original wealth and we all sacrifice for the same thing, our families.CM189191 said:
Yes. Estate tax reform is a great place to start.cincybearcat said:
I think you are ignoring some things.CM189191 said:cincybearcat said:
I’m no expert. But it seems “wealth disparity” is inevitable in a capitalist situation. Now you can add some controls to ensure it doesn’t get as big as it has...but the person with the good idea, the work ethic and the fucking guts to take some huge risk (or get others to backing them) is going to gain a lot of wealth.bootlegger10 said:
So is the wealth disparity an issue or just inevitable?cincybearcat said:Interesting thing I read... Bill Gates didn’t start his foundation and all his giving until after leaving Microsoft.
People love to talk about how great Gates is....and he seems to do a lot of good work. They’ve compared Bezos to Gates here. But are they that different st this point? Maybe when Bezos leaves amazon he will do the same with all that $.
I guess we will wait and see.
is it actually better for the government to gain all that wealth?
Good ideas, taking risks, and work ethic are not correlated with success.
Being born rich, white, and male is. Having a lack of morals helps too.
The US economy no longer rewards hard work.
I do understand the concern of huge $ passed on to future generations...and they have sometime done little to now work. But you would have the government take all that $?hippiemom = goodness0 -
Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
0 -
pjl44 said:If you liquidated Bezos's entire net worth and redistributed it evenly amongst Americans, each person would get $300. Distribute it amongst everyone in the world and it's about $15. There's a problem with scale when people get all red-assed over billionaires.
The power and influence that comes with wealth, though, can certainly be a problem. If we want to solve that, it's about decentralizing power and influence so there's little to be bought. Just using the force of the state to rob someone has no impact on the actual problem.CNBC reported a stat that the top 10% of adults own 85% of the world's wealth. That's a problem.
For example, say a diamond mine may have been purchased by a family (or stolen, who knows) 200 years ago. The people in that town/region may be poor but that diamond mine benefits them very little because of something that happened 200 years ago. You have this great resource in your backyard but some rich family in Europe has 28 houses all over the world because of it. There has to be a limit to how long that mass hoarding of wealth can take place.
Post edited by bootlegger10 on0 -
It’s a hell of a lot more obscene that the Kardashian’s and Jenner’s are rich as fuck than it is that gates and bezos. They add zero value and have no discernible talents0
-
I'm not arguing with your point, but the "CEO" issue isn't relegated to corporations. My experience is that a small business owner creates as much disparity between him/herself and the workers as any CEO. The corporate CEO probably gets paid more in stocks/options than a private business owner, but the CEO likely provides higher average salaries and benefits to the staff. This isn't a new problem.bootlegger10 said:Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
0 -
mrussel1 said:
I'm not arguing with your point, but the "CEO" issue isn't relegated to corporations. My experience is that a small business owner creates as much disparity between him/herself and the workers as any CEO. The corporate CEO probably gets paid more in stocks/options than a private business owner, but the CEO likely provides higher average salaries and benefits to the staff. This isn't a new problem.bootlegger10 said:Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
For sure. Like I said it is complicated. You don't want to take a successful family business from the next generation who is running it well and then the government runs it into the ground. Jobs exist because of business owners so I'm not arguing against them. At some point though the reward to the business owner is probably more than it should be. Congrats, you had a great idea. That doesn't mean you should be able to buy three small islands in the Carribean. "Oh, you worked 60 hours a week and so you think you should get two towers in Manhattan? Lots of people work hard."0 -
Yes I understand your point of view. And I agree to an extent. Not sure what % or how I’d like it to be done though.bootlegger10 said:Perhaps the estate tax can be a reward for the teachers or the non-profit employees who don't make much money but have an impact on people just as much as any CEO has. The CEO gets more income and has more toys during their life but when all is said and done the CEO gives back a big chunk when they die to the people so the teachers and the non-profits have more resources to work with.
No one is arguing for communism, but arguing to improve a capitalist system that results in a obscene transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the super wealthy. And the gap is only going to grow as processes become less labor intensive.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?Halifax2TheMax said:
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.mrussel1 said:
Wasn't it Staten Island?Halifax2TheMax said:It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
What is obscene is Amazon and Bezos begging for $3BB in handouts.benjs said:
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?Halifax2TheMax said:
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.mrussel1 said:
Wasn't it Staten Island?Halifax2TheMax said:It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.
I think you mentioned your family having 5 brick and mortar stores, right? Now let’s say your family decides to open a sixth store in an economically depressed part of town but the area needs some infrastructure improvements and you don’t quite have the financing for what it takes. I’d be supportive of your family receiving a similarly ratioed tax incentive/break as Amazon. But once you’ve reached the wealth attainment like amazon and Bezos, you’re on your own.
I’d also like to think as your family income increases, the pay of your employees would increase beyond the rate of inflation, or in the form of healthcare/retirement/education benefits or bonuses. Business schools need to reintroduce ethics and morals into the curriculum. The disparity in pay between workers and owners or ceos is what is obscene.
One example: caterpillar won a six year wage freeze from their union despite $37k in profits per employee. They have 55k employees who average $50k per year. That’s obscene.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
benjs said:
It's not obscene, it's capitalism. Say today I'm a small business owner (~$20K salary because I'm a startup), I do my research on working wages for a warehouse worker, and decide on $15 an hour targeting low end of the wage spectrum for that role (aka pricing the worth of the labour based on the market). A lucrative year goes by, and I commit to a $90K salary. Another, and I'm at $300K (24x my Y1 income). I keep up with cost of living wages for my worker, and I still feel that that I'm looking to hire someone in that role from the low end of the wage spectrum. When and why does my obligation change from being fair relative to the market, to being 'fair relative to my income' (which in itself seems arbitrary)?Halifax2TheMax said:
That’s knowing how to talk like locals, nuance. Staten Island or Long Island, does it matter? Amazon is fiercely anti union. Drivers, teamsters, and warehouse workers. The thing is, they don’t have to be. They could pay $30 an hour to the picker, build and pay for their HQ and not miss a dinner, a yacht, a fifth home, or anything. It’s obscene.mrussel1 said:
Wasn't it Staten Island?Halifax2TheMax said:It also seems like the discussion of non-interference with a potential unionization effort of the Long Island warehouse/distribution center was an issue. It wasn’t all about the HQ but rather all of the ancillary issues, as well as the arrogance exhibited by Amazon executives in that they hired no locals to negotiate in NYC.
Kind of reminds me of being in Seattle in 2013 for Pearl Jam and how the locals had so much swagger because of their super bowl victory, how cocky they all were. Well, we all know what happened the following year ( Malcolm Butler). Guess Bezos and Amazon ought to learn how to “play the game?” Or be petulant like Team Trump Treason. And guess what? LIC will be fine.
Hired no locals to negotiate?? What is that... greasing palms? Why would they need "consultants"? That's corrupt NY politics.
This is expecting a lot of ethical behaviour from corporations, in addition to asking CEOs to raise costs without tying that back to an eventual bottom line increase - ignoring fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to not tank the stock prices. It's the responsibility of the government to form laws to produce fair and equitable for its citizens. It's the responsibility of the corporations to adhere to those laws - not to be their own ethical watchdogs.You could just have easily said, "It's not obscene, it's greed". Bono (who is no fan of taxes, full disclosure) sang "What you thought was freedom was just greed". We get that public companies must build value for their shareholders. No one is arguing against that. But perhaps those shareholders have a higher estate tax when they pass away (hence your point on changing laws).
Perhaps the option is that the government does not get it but your favorite non-profit organization or foundation. Perhaps to keep the family business or family farm in the family there is a requirement when a generation passes that the portion of the value that would go to the government is transferred to a foundation so the company does not need to sell its assets to pay the estate tax but the foundation can use dividends to do some good for the community.
0 -
Amazon is not 1st company asking for corporate welfare. Canada and the US regularly use tax dollars to subsidize the auto, 2008 ring a bell. I am no fan of corporate welfare, but the 10 billion or so GM got from Canada and Ontario benefited Canada economy to the tune of 108 billion in 10 years (GM's numbers that the Union did not dispute). And GM creates very little new jobs in Canada, as a matter of GM is closing a plant and has already moved another line to Mexico.
Seems like 3b is a small price to pay to secure 25000 jobs that will be in the New York area for decades to come. But politicians never really look at the big pictures. And if a few NY politicians egos are bruised, so what. Amazon's got the jobs. And as far as the unions go, who cares... business will always try to stop unionization. Honda and Toyota have kept the unions out of there Ontario operations. I paid union dues for 25 years, a huge waste of money unless of course, you had one foot out the door because of laziness and stupidity, then the union would spend like drunken sailors to keep those people.Give Peas A Chance…0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help