That's $36.5 bil a yr.

To pay all 215,000 Walmart workers who don't make $15/hr at the $15/hr rate would costs Walgreens roughly $6.7 bil in payroll.

Mind you, this is total cost of the payroll. The actual additional cost would be much less given that people would simply need a raise to get to that point.

So for the sake of argument, say every one of those 215K employees makes $11/hr right now. The increase to payroll cost would be approx. $1.78 bil annually to move them to $15/hr.

So...to recap, $36.5 - $1.78 = $34.72 bil

Yet, we can't pay $15 without astronomically raising prices huh?

mod edit: Walton family.

....or get an education if they’ve hit their ceiling.

anything is better than trying to make someone spend money on something they dont want to

no one would have benefits, holiday time, or weekends off, and they'd be making $5/hour.

Why would Walmart "want" to pay more? Do you pay more for a pair of shoes than you have to?
No. You pay whatever the price is. No more.

If the price of labor is "x", why would Walmart (or any business) want to pay "x+5"? They should only want to do that if they get something worthwhile out of it (see: chick fil a, Costco, Trader Joe's).

Any company with a positive profit is able to increase payrolls. But there is no reason to.

there is zero benefit to having the owners of giant companies making obscene profits. the entire point of this post is that every large company can afford to pay workers a living wage with very little impact to the owner's lifestyle.

but you dont want to talk about that

And yet, you only argue for the rights of billionaires to make more money

You got empty shelves, shitty customer service, one lane open at rush hour, etc...

$100 mil x 365 days = $36.5 billion
215,000 employees x 2080 hrs/yr (fulltime, 40hrs per week) = 447,200,000 work hours to be compensated for.

All of these employees are currently being paid a wage. The article I read said something along the lines of $11/$11.50 an hour.

So 447,200,000 work hours x $11/hr = $4,919,200,000 in payroll
So their payroll for these employees is almost $5 bil dollars as it stands.

To increase that $11/hr to $15 would be 446,200,000 work hours x $4 which is $1,784,800,000. So just under $2 bil dollars.

If the Walmart family makes $36.5 billion a year, sacrificing just under $2 billion shouldn't adversely affect the shopping public. One of the primary arguments against raising wages is that it would raise consumer cost. Well, not if corporate greed was held in check.

>Why would Walmart "want" to pay more? Do you pay more for a
>pair of shoes than you have to?
>No. You pay whatever the price is. No more.

Well, if the economy has pushed out indicators that says less people in America are able to make a living wage and my company's workforce falls within that line, I'd want to make sure my workforce was taken care of as without them the billions suffer. Let alone, that there will be a breaking point if this excessive separation continues (revolts, violence, increased crime, etc). It's a socioeconomic issue.

Now you're right, no billionaire has the mandate to do something about it, but I find it irresponsible to be in that position and relish in immobility around it.

>If the price of labor is "x", why would Walmart (or any
>business) want to pay "x+5"? They should only want to do that
>if they get something worthwhile out of it (see: chick fil a,
>Costco, Trader Joe's).
>
>Any company with a positive profit is able to increase
>payrolls. But there is no reason to.

Until people can't really afford to live and they start storming the gates of the Walmart mansions.

Think about it this way. The NBA players association actively negotiates that owners must pay players a fair share of revenue. That's why salary caps continually increase, fairly based on the performance of the company. No one ever says, 'Why should an NBA player get more of the profit when they don't own the team?' That's because the NBA has to value their talent as the employees make the business run. Fortunately for them, they have collective bargaining to keep billionaires in check. The guy making $11/hr has no advocate so CEO/Shareholder comp has increased to 234 times what avg wages are (up from 20 times avg wages in the 1960's) and wages have stagnated behind inflation so a dollar today doesn't go as far as it did 30-40 yrs ago.

In essence, Americans are working harder, for longer hours (2nd most overworked labor force in the world behind Japan) to make and afford less.

That sort of wealth gap isn't good for the US (or any country for that matter) and it's the type of environment that has facilitated 45's election and a crushing decrease of the middle class.

minimum wage and taxes on the rich.

The solution is simple. It's so weird to see non-rich people terrified of taxing rich people more and have this big concern about poor people stealing from the rich.

https://twitter.com/5g4all1/status/1161311855517863936



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

of ever seeing anything close to that money in their life will argue against increasing wages until blue in the face.
Imagine how these business owners feel,lol.
Capitalism is magic.

I set up the post and messed it all up. lol

complicated by their fiduciary duty to shareholders??... i.e. have to do what is in the business' best interest and thus shareholders' best interest, or something to that effect.

There seems to have been debate in recent years about whether corporate law truly prescribes profit maximization at "any" cost (I just lazily googled and keep coming across references to a quote from the SCOTUS on Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby that "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.").

But ya. At some point I do believe that (at least) a small portion of the blame applies to structural (and cultural) factors. The system governing corporations is in and of itself broken.

Not saying that excuses oppressive greed or anything lol but just thinking that perhaps change must also occur at the statutory and regulatory levels before any real gains will transpire on this issue. Shaming corporations one-by-one will take forever.

Imagine thinking that workers couldn't manage a company better than some chud with an MBA and a boat named after his fourth wife.

Wouldn't it be in the shareholders best interest to keep that $98 mil?

See, CEO comp has grown exponentially comparative to regular wages. CEO's even get paid if the company's strategy sucks and they lose market share/stock value.

So where's the rationale to that?

but why pay employees billions more when Govt assistance can pay them 6 bill

I feel like there is a growing unsettling of the avg working American. Eventually, the canons will point in the right direction.

Automation and out-sourcing aren't doing the rest of us any favors.

conflating contractually obligated compensation with (what appears to be) the overall strategy behind executive (over)compensation. I reeeally really don't think CEOs are compensated based on some calculus of how deserving they are compared to workers, or how much more qualified, etc. I think it's all about profits.

Like, you're 100% right. Shitty CEOs still get paid for their work. But I think that's moreso in honor of whatever contract was agreed to between the company and the executive, not unlike the way shitty employees are also still paid for their work. Shitty CEOs don't usually end up keeping their job, though (eg. Marissa Mayer getting booted/asked to resign from Yahoo is a recent example that comes to mind. She was still paid handsomely.)

In contrast, I think the crux of the overall strategy behind executive (over)compensation is that those millions that a board hands off to an executive is viewed more as a price to pay for profits. Meaning, if they have somebody with whatever combination of experience, network, strategy, and ruthlessness who can consistently help them meet or exceed desired profit targets, than X% of said profits is a reasonable price to pay to make said profits.


>See, CEO comp has grown exponentially comparative to regular
>wages. CEO's even get paid if the company's strategy sucks
>and they lose market share/stock value.
>
>So where's the rationale to that?

>conflating contractually obligated compensation with (what
>appears to be) the overall strategy behind executive
>(over)compensation. I reeeally really don't think CEOs are
>compensated based on some calculus of how deserving they are
>compared to workers, or how much more qualified, etc. I think
>it's all about profits.

Why are contractual obligations guaranteed? Why don't they come with performance clauses? The CEO is already paid handsomely. Why add a contractually obligated payment regardless of performance?

>Like, you're 100% right. Shitty CEOs still get paid for their
>work. But I think that's moreso in honor of whatever contract
>was agreed to between the company and the executive, not
>unlike the way shitty employees are also still paid for their
>work. Shitty CEOs don't usually end up keeping their job,
>though (eg. Marissa Mayer getting booted/asked to resign from
>Yahoo is a recent example that comes to mind. She was still
>paid handsomely.)

Does it really hurt to lose a job that paid you $260 mil to leave (yes, she got $260 mil)? C'mon. You act like losing that job is some detriment to her livelihood.

>In contrast, I think the crux of the overall strategy behind
>executive (over)compensation is that those millions that a
>board hands off to an executive is viewed more as a price to
>pay for profits. Meaning, if they have somebody with whatever
>combination of experience, network, strategy, and ruthlessness
>who can consistently help them meet or exceed desired profit
>targets, than X% of said profits is a reasonable price to pay
>to make said profits.

And the rest of the workforce doesn't contribute to said profits? This is a cop out. Paying a livable wage 'should' be a cost of doing business mandate but because oligarchy is the norm in government, no one makes corporate greed accountable for the masses. So they conflate the importance of a CEO, pay them even if they fail and complain whenever the 10's of thousands of peasants say, 'it's hard to live on $11/hr in New York/DC/Chicago/LA/Houston/Atlanta, etc'.

How dare you ask for enough to keep up with inflation when we have to pay CEO's more than they've ever made in history?!?!

a corporation enters an agreement with an executive or an employee.

I don't think the legal standing of contracts needs to differ depending on the net worth of the people involved. And I do believe a lot of employment contracts include performance clauses, actually.. I mean it would be hard to confirm lol but I'd be surprised if many didn't. Especially those involving executives.

That said, I don't actually disagree with you on a lot of this. I think fair and liveable compensation to employees should absolutely be a cost of doing business, and corporate greed has definitely been codified and normalized in American society and its corporate governance frameworks, which has implications even beyond US borders.

But I still think it's vitally important to understand the true animus behind corporate behavior, if there's any hope at all to change it (or even just effectively regulate it lol).


>Why are contractual obligations guaranteed? Why don't they
>come with performance clauses? The CEO is already paid
>handsomely. Why add a contractually obligated payment
>regardless of performance?
>

>Does it really hurt to lose a job that paid you $260 mil to
>leave (yes, she got $260 mil)? C'mon. You act like losing
>that job is some detriment to her livelihood.
>

>
>And the rest of the workforce doesn't contribute to said
>profits? This is a cop out. Paying a livable wage 'should'
>be a cost of doing business mandate but because oligarchy is
>the norm in government, no one makes corporate greed
>accountable for the masses. So they conflate the importance
>of a CEO, pay them even if they fail and complain whenever the
>10's of thousands of peasants say, 'it's hard to live on
>$11/hr in New York/DC/Chicago/LA/Houston/Atlanta, etc'.
>
>How dare you ask for enough to keep up with inflation when we
>have to pay CEO's more than they've ever made in history?!?!
>
>

"agency" isn't given very much lipservice in these discussions about collective ownership (though, if I remember correctly you teach humanities... so perhaps you're aware of and/or can point me in the right direction of some writing on that aspect of this issue)

But ya - with all this talk about overthrowing the wealthy owner/executive class, collective ownership, etc.. has there been sufficient consideration about whether most people even want that responsibility??

Personally, I think executive management in and of itself is not a skillset everyone has, regardless of compensation level lol.

Especially for an enormous transnational enterprise like Walmart. The logistics, inventory and supply chain management, finances, compliance, quality control, branding and marketing, vendor managment and retail operations alone seems mindboggling, talk less of managing
and appeasing hundreds of thousands of people in the workforce.

Tons of people, alone, work on those aspects of Walmart's business. It would actually be interesting to survey minimum-wage Walmart employees about how much of a priority(or purpose?) those aspects of Walmart's business even play in their own everyday lives and fulfillment, and whether they desire more control.

I know for me, personally, when I worked service jobs in retail, hospitality, etc? Those aspects of my employers' businesses mattered very little to me. Even aspects with direct impacts on my actual job duties (eg. oh we have to ask an extra question now BEFORE pouring water in customers' glasses? To improve the customer experience? ok lol). And if there had been an opportunity to participate in the decision-making of some of those aspects, and be compensated for it... would I have taken it? Probably not, actually. Or what if I didn't even have a choice? Would I enjoy a minimum-wage job that required that much involvement from me in its business decision-making? Probably not.

Perhaps there are a lot of people who have felt/would feel similarly, and this is why collective bargaining managed to emerge and thrive in American society but not collective ownership? Who knows..


>Imagine thinking that workers couldn't manage a company
>better than some chud with an MBA and a boat named after his
>fourth wife.

>"agency" isn't given very much lipservice in these discussions
>about collective ownership (though, if I remember correctly
>you teach humanities... so perhaps you're aware of and/or can
>point me in the right direction of some writing on that aspect
>of this issue)

I'll be a generalist when the job calls for it, but my academic interest is in the late middle ages and very, very early modernity - so I'm not equipped to anything but an asshole with an opinion about much besides that period. Though I'm re-reading Marc Bloch's "Feudal Society" after a long, long break and it's kind of compelling to see him describe economic relationships that just recapitulate really similar types of exploitation. To me, that kind of points to some question-begging that you're doing here on the order of assuming that there's something natural about the relationship between labor and capital. It's a fair point that running a giant multi-national company requires a different skillset than actually making stuff in a factory, but that kind of skates by some points that worker might want to quibble with, like how we've stopped asking if growing profits should be the primary objective of a business and now only find it ethically appropriate to consider whether it should be the only objective. That transition empowers capital, but it completely disarms labor and consumers and, maybe most urgently, the environment.

Which is to say that I think you're being utterly reasonable in considering that some of the dynamics that drive decisions about labor practices, but maybe ... don't? Like, those guys are going to be fine unless they actually get guillotined, but the system they've erected is actively harming people so interrogating it in a way that makes an "is" into an "ought" is only going to find answers that benefit them. Or, in short, there's no such thing as "the way the world works" if you look at a long enough timeline.

>Tons of people, alone, work on those aspects of Walmart's
>business. It would actually be interesting to survey
>minimum-wage Walmart employees about how much of a priority(or
>purpose?) those aspects of Walmart's business even play in
>their own everyday lives and fulfillment, and whether they
>desire more control.

I guess this is what I'm talking about. Your approach here assumes that maintaining Walmart's economic power is a necessary goal and if you ask a floor worker how much of the hated managerial class' responsibility they're willing to take on, then the answer may be "none". Or it may not. But if they organize and structure the company's objectives in such a way isn't congruent with the Walton's pursuit of trillionaire status, maybe they can have a company that's less productive but is still successful. Only now it's successful in a way that respects the value of people's labor and contributes less to the imminent destruction of the earth. Or not. Again, this is out of my depth - so all I actually have is a disagreement with your framing.

>Perhaps there are a lot of people who have felt/would feel
>similarly, and this is why collective bargaining managed to
>emerge and thrive in American society but not collective
>ownership? Who knows.

I don't. Though if I had to guess, I'd guess that the American legal system is set up to preserve the needs of capital over labor, and so the former will always be legally empowered to thrive while the latter will have to fight for everything. There was a pretty big farm cooperative movement in the midwest around in the middle third of the century. Maybe that would shed some light if there's somebody here (honestly, not me) who knows something about American history.

I, too, am just an asshole with an opinion on here lol. The only thing I'll add is in response to your points here:


>
>Which is to say that I think you're being utterly reasonable
>in considering that some of the dynamics that drive decisions
>about labor practices, but maybe ... don't? Like, those guys
>are going to be fine unless they actually get guillotined, but
>the system they've erected is actively harming people so
>interrogating it in a way that makes an "is" into an "ought"
>is only going to find answers that benefit them. Or, in short,
>there's no such thing as "the way the world works" if you look
>at a long enough timeline.
>


I agree, they'll be fine. And I think you raise a super important point with regards to the moral relativism in anchoring our questions and/or solutions to "how the world works now" (and danger in doing so). BUT. I STILL think a thorough command of corporations' dynamics is key to delivering lasting reforms expected to work.

ESPECIALLY reforms to structural and cultural processes that further entrench (and/or, as you're getting at, even protect) toxic labor practices. Personally, I don't think it's sufficient for a labor practice to "just" be recognized as a problem, or a reform to "just" be recognized as a solution. There's that whole apparatus surrounding the problem and solution, right? With inputs including but not limited to: civic awareness, civic engagement, political representation, political will, legislative action, regulatory action, probably even some executive action lol, and of course the willful compliance of the corporations in question.

So I engage in a little devil's advocacy not so much thinking "but, but, what about the execs?!" Lol. Moreso just trying to acknowledge the "corporate" head/playbook, and the various ways that it may intersect the "apparatus". And you're right, framing things in such a way could bias solutions to benefit corporations. But, understanding the corporate perspective could also shine a light on hidden tricks, loopholes, and subculture that have become such a problem to begin with too, and enable the formation of corrections/safeguards against them. I think that's also important. Imho anyway lol

A lot of those exorbitant executive compensation packages aren't as simple as some direct deposits into a bank account. Executives are often paid in shares as well, which has the perverse benefit of aligning an executive's personal greed with the business' corporate greed.

CEOs aren't compensated so much because of popularity or even because of their qualifications. They're compensated that much as a cut of the profits they were able to generate and as an incentive to generate more. Imho anyway.

I think last I saw the number it was 6.2B annually.

https://www.worldhunger.org/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-public-assistance/

So wal-mart heirs receive some absurd amount of profits annually, and we the american taxpayers are subsidizing it.

It would be simpler to just ask Us to write checks directly to Wal-Mart then to redistribute our money to the Waltons' through our tax and entitlements structure.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/business/bernie-sanders-walmart-minimum-wage/index.html

efficient? And a big part of the issue is structural and cultural.

Her Accountable Capitalism bill focuses on the entire system surrounding corporate governance, not just one company.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

If you actually believe Warren would fight for any of these ideals. The bottom line is this, nobody could genuinely argue that it wasn't Bernie who popularized all these new ideas over the last 4 years, your own link says "The new energy on the left is all about making government bigger and bolder, an ideal driven by a burgeoning movement toward democratic socialism."

So taking that as a given if Warren really believed in enacting these things she would have fully endorsed Bernie's platform in 2016. Instead she had been vetted by Hillary for VP and was hoping for that position. She put her personal ambitions over the platform. So now we are supposed to believe that she wants this platform in 2019 while having many former Clinton employees, hobnobbing with the Center for American Progress, being praised by Third Way, pushed by corporate media and a capitalist to her bones?

Who gives a shit who popularize the ideas? Hats off to him for starting the convo but what matters most is who is the most effective person to enact the agenda.

If yall make Bernie the litmus test for everything then of course no one besides Bernie will satisify yall.

If not kissing Bernie's ring is the purity test then yalls movement is a cult of personality.

Fuck Bernie for cultivating this shit.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

It's not about Bernie himself it is about the movement surrounding him, his campaign slogan is "Not me, Us". It is the movement that will be able to enact the change, historically most major change happens through mass movements and that is what Bernie is the figurehead of. As he says he will do things differently and be the Organizer in Chief https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1156920512179818502?s=20

I'm tired of people constantly trying to smear Bernie, or the movement or his supporters as somehow disingenuous. I can tell you that the vast majority of Bernie supporters are people who care overwhelmingly about the prosperity of the common man. Is it too much to not be mocked for wanting basic goodness and fairness for people. This movement is about ending the suffering of the working poor and the sick and the oppressed and the underclass of
society. Being against or undermining that basic notion is so perplexing to me.

I believe a majority of Warren supporters probably want these things too that's why I don't want them to be fooled by her when the stakes are so high. Why take a risk on her with all the red flags and the chances of her fighting for these things being less than 100% when Bernie has a proven track record of 50 years of fighting for them and no chance he'll waver?

>Is it too much to not be mocked for wanting basic
>goodness and fairness for people.

Wanting those things means re-conceiving a lot of things that people want to treat like gravity, an intractable fact of nature. You're telling them that the entire way they understand the world is wrong. Liberals will fight socialism just as hard as they fight fascism, but they'll do it while telling you they agree with you in principle - it's just that now isn't the time with all these fascists around.

wish so badly we could decouple the practices of "this" particular flavor of capitalism from the actual mechanics of enterprise.

I often resent that our only understanding of capitalism is one anchored in a patriarchy designed and dominated by a specific demographic. For example, if most of the owner/executive class were women.. black women, even (or asian, latin american, young, elderly, etc.).. would female-led corporations exhibit similar behavior?? would there have been so much tax evasion? Would there have been so much oppressive exploitation? Outsourcing? Would ruthless profit maximization have been bolstered as the end-all be-all of enterprise? We don't even know because there are literally so few examples of an economy with a diverse owner/executive class. Even just having a female U.S. presidential candidate propose a different, more disciplined, accountable, flavour of capitalism that could be possible with better regulation has been refreshing to so many people (based on the traction Warren is getting with her message).

I think Sanders supporters should try to realize that, as passionate as they are about his call for socialist revolution, some people don't necessarily hate the idea of enterprise or want to do away with capitalism all together. Some of us see enterprise as a preferred pathway to security, to access, to comfort, to creative fulfilment. Others may derive similar security, or access, or comfort, or creative fulfilment from other things in life and want to focus more of their energy on that - and that's fine too.

Personally, I don't see why one group must cease to exist to spare the other (which is why I still disapprove of the current squeeze felt by those not in the exorbitantly wealthy owner/executive class). I think both views are perfectly acceptable (in theory) and, ideally, a society should be able to accomodate both. That's why I think strict corrections to the current system are long overdue, but stop short of supporting a complete overthrow.

Just speaking for myself btw, and wanted to shed light into the thinking of somebone that leans more Warren than Sanders. Or, more broadly, more Social Democrat than Democratic Socialist. There are lots of other views, of course..


>
>Wanting those things means re-conceiving a lot of things that
>people want to treat like gravity, an intractable fact of
>nature. You're telling them that the entire way they
>understand the world is wrong. Liberals will fight socialism
>just as hard as they fight fascism, but they'll do it while
>telling you they agree with you in principle - it's just that
>now isn't the time with all these fascists around.

At present, it isn't. I don't want to own a business or to live in luxury. I just want to work and not have to worry. I don't think the problem is that capitalism is too white and too male, though that definitely doesn't help, but that it is a fundamentally disordered way of relating each other as human beings. It can't function without exploitation.

It sucks writing an answer that sounds glib since all of your responses make me feel the same way that Warren does: I wish I agree that this idea could be redeemed, but I don't agree that it can.

All that said, I'm not sure a revolution that relies on electoral results is a revolution at all, particularly in America. And so while I think that the difference between Sanders and Warren is a difference in kind, not degree - it wouldn't work that way practically and Warren would be an incredibly step forward for the (apparently radical) idea that human beings don't exist to be bled dry for a tiny investor class.

and vice versa, lol. But I do hear you and get your overall position.


I think I was just trying to draw attention to the clear and obvious cultural hegemony "within" capitalism (not just surrounding it), which doesn't seem to receive enough criticism or blame. Or rather, the lack of diversity IS acknowledged but only as a hindrance to profits (eg. "Investors confess: Women-led corporations generate superior returns compared to corporations led by men!"), as opposed to the essential feature it is of "this" particular flavor of capitalism and one the current owner/executive/board of directors class seems keen to protect.

I find DEEPLY unfair the idea that people (especially historically underrepresented people) interested in enterprise could face barriers (i.e. to their chance to pursue their preferred path to security, access, comfort, and creative fulfilment) just because one dominant group has abused the system and (potentially) ruined it for everybody else. I don't care whether those barriers are due to unethical capitalists trying to protect the current system that benefits them so oppressively, or anti-capitalists trying to do away with capitalist systems to begin with. I would much rather see the system and its bad actors get their long overdue regulatory/legal smackdown and have the freedom to pursue my own dreams/fullest potential/own example (IF that's one's choice). It's literally been the same type of person dominating capitalism since its origin. Before trashing it all together, I'm not convinced a more diverse and ethical class of participants couldn't execute a better - or at least different - iteration, especially with lessons learned/appropriate safeguards put in place moving forward.

Again, as unlikely as it appears, I bet we (and probably a lot of SocialDems and DemSocs) agree on more than we realize. Of course the current system is broken, and it's not at all "radical" to take issue with the level of inequality we are seeing (I think you were being sarcastic but still, lol). But to me, the strongest disagreements appear to be in the diagnostics(eg. how (much?) blame/power is being attributed to structure vs. function, humans vs. environment, etc.), and the tactics and points of intervention which flow from that.

The main thing I find paradoxical in the Sanders approach is the almost singular focus on "just the one" type of exploitation (i.e. capitalistic). If exploitation truly is the CORE issue, I mean. Because if that's the case.. then even Sanders supporters have acquiesced to a sort of Faustian bargain, where either consciously or subconciously there is a level of exploitation you all are willing to live with.

Even IF Sanders was successfully elected and successfully enacted/coordinated his socialist agenda (sidenote: I only called it a revolution above because that's the language his camp has used eg. "Our Revolution"), government takeovers can only cover so much ground, right? What about the exploitation occurring in so many other theatres of everyday life (eg. mating/sexual relationships, childcare, etc.)? Talk less of the global impacts the American way of life has around the globe or even the historical exploitations being tallied by the reparations debate.

And I don't mean this as a question of "why try?", but more as an analogy to how "Warren Progressives" can stomach exploitative nuances in the private sector if it means architecting and preserving a more fair, accountable, capitalist system. In my view, "Sanders Progressives" are ALSO choosing to stomach exploitative nuances if, for example, yall would pat yourselves on the back after grabbing a morning coffee from your local coffee shop, knowing the cashier is now making a livable income, yet accept the fact that the small-scale farmer(s) in *insert global south country here* producing the beans for said coffee are not.

I'm not insinuating Warren doesn't also advocate for minimum wage increase or that Bernie doesn't care about the global scope of capitalist oppression. Just that.. Warren's style of progressivism is a bit more explicit about its targets and limitations, and imho this appears to be what's striking (some) people as more constructive. (Unless Sanders has some sort of grander feminist Trotskyist plan we're unaware of that might resolve why he is so fixated on one facet of exploitation and dismissive of others).

Is this type of stuff:

https://twitter.com/DailyTrix/status/1162912270764130305


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://slate.com/business/2018/10/amazon-15-an-hour-bernie-sanders.html

"It looks like Bernie Sanders just helped a few hundred thousand Amazon workers get a raise. Under increasing political pressure over its pay practices, Jeff Bezos’ e-commerce behemoth announced Tuesday that it would increase its companywide minimum wage to $15 an hour starting this year."

on his organizing to successfully get disney to do the same:

Bernie Sanders rallies Disneyland employees for a $15 minimum wage

https://boingboing.net/2018/06/03/down-and-out-in-the-magic-king-3.html

https://youtu.be/SVl6fB8Zp2I

many of us are old enough to have been aware of what we were witnessing....

Right downtown next to the Kroger store
Is where my hardware store once stood
They're both gone now
Along with the rest of downtown
All the windows are boarded over with wood

We survived the arrival of the K-mart
And the Pamida that had come before
But not even they had the strength
To withstand the attack of that
Fucking Walmart store

Sam Walton promised prosperity and every-day low prices
When he brought his store to town
He only delivered unemployment
As one by one all the other stores shut down

Soon I was forced to swallow my pride
And take the only job I could score
For 28 hours a week at minimum wage
I'm the greeter out at
The Walmart store

Sam Walton has singlehandedly sounded the deathbell
For small towns across America
I learned my lesson and I'm here to tell you:
You can't trust a man from Arkansas No, you can't trust a man from Arkansas
Don't trust any man from Arkansas!!

Wow.

You mad, socialist?

billionaires right to continually steal and horde wealth and resources at the expense of the people who make them rich in the first place.
You're cool with that?

https://giphy.com/gifs/sure-uh-huh-mmhmm-1tHzw9PZCB3gY

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/business/business-roundtable-ceos-corporations.html

Faced with mounting global discontent over climate change, income inequality and working conditions, a coalition of major companies pledged to revise a longstanding principle of corporate governance.

Shareholders aren’t everything, the coalition, the Business Roundtable, said Monday.

The group, a collection of executives representing some of America’s largest companies, issued a statement on Monday that redefines “the purpose of a corporation.” No longer should the primary job of a corporation be to advance the interests of its shareholders, the group said.

Companies must also invest in their employees, deliver value to their customers and deal fairly and ethically with their suppliers, the group said.

The statement was signed by nearly 200 chief executives, including the leaders of Apple, American Airlines, Accenture, AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing and BlackRock.

“While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,” the group said in a statement. “We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.”

The Business Roundtable did not provide specifics on how to achieve this shift, offering more of a mission statement than a plan of action. But the companies pledged to compensate employees fairly and provide “important benefits,” as well as training and education. They also promised to “protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses” and “foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.”

Since the 1970s, the Business Roundtable, which primarily functions as a lobbying organization, has periodically issued principles of corporate governance that describe how a company should operate. Each version of those principles over the last 20 years has stated that “corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders,” according to Monday’s announcement.

“It has become clear that this language on corporate purpose does not accurately describe the ways in which we and our fellow C.E.O.s endeavor every day to create value for all our stakeholders,” the group said in its statement.

Business Roundtable had been working on the new language for about a year, said Brian Moynihan, chief executive of Bank of America.

“You can provide great returns for your shareholders and great benefits for your employees and run your business in a responsible way,” Mr. Moynihan said in an interview.

unless it's reflected in the law/regulation.

The only way to harness CEO pay, shareholder profits is to tax the shit out of to make it not worth it. You really needa 75-90% marginal tax rate.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

for a few concessions for employees.

A federal law should be enacted that all employers of a certain size/sales level/profit margin must pay a livable wage for the market they are doing business in. They must also provide low premium/deductible health/dental/vision benefits and offer both a pension and retirement option for employees to opt into.

These benefits must be provided by profit and not a drastic increase in prices for services or goods which the company sells. Inflation of price should follow prior trends and not overtly give weight to more disposable income. Maybe a pricing freeze for 5 yrs with economic pricing strategy monitored by the IRS afterward to ensure that the corps don't go gouging after the freeze?

If all of these items are in place, I'd be ok with a lenient tax rate for job creators/shareholders.

Obviously this would need to be fleshed out and I'm very concerned about viability but this would be a start.

Smaller employers must pay minimum wage and increase wages per profit and growth.

suggest, too, could be strong well-architected safeguards against gaming the system.

Imho, the main challenge with super-high marginal tax rates is their (likely) political intractabilty in congress even IF corportate lobbying against them wasn't an issue (eg. no bipartisan support, disagreement even among Dems). Plus, even if such tax rates were miraculously legislated, the first thing the owner/exec class is going to do is park that wealth in structures where they won't apply. It "is" the group that perfected tax avoidance into an artform, after all. lol

But that's why I think Warren is smart for trying to target the specific mechanisms with which wealth is hoarded and manipulated. For example, her proposal to enact strict controls on corporate shares and how they are bought and sold. Like we were talking about earlier in the post, the renumeration and wealth of most owners/execs is in shares, not liquid cash. Furthermore, those shares are the main tool with which wealth is hoarded and inflated because they are used to toy with scarcity, manipulate share price, etc. So placing controls on that activity would hopefully a) disincentivize share renumeration as a practice and b) force reinvestment of market gains back into the business (i.e. wages, benefits, training, upgrades) rather than stock buyback schemes and other supply manipulation tactics.

I'm NOT an economist and probably fucked all of that up (lol), but it seems to be Warren's intent and makes tactical sense. The only thing I question about going after stocks is how the (inevitable) stock market correction would affect savings/investments/pensions/retirement funds of middle class folks. I have read that such an intervention would drop prices like crazy, despite laying the groundwork for a more honest path forward. So hopefully there's a way to implement things such that gains in wages and savings and profits are balanced in such a way every stakeholder group can walk away happy(er?).

But overall, I agree with Buddy 100% about the "too little, too late" vibe of the business leaders' consensus linked above. It would have had to happen sooner or later. To me it reeks of sensing the inevitability of a regulatory smackdown and trying to pre-emptively soften the blow lol.

But this part:

"But that's why I think Warren is smart for trying to target the specific mechanisms with which wealth is hoarded and manipulated. For example, her proposal to enact strict controls on corporate shares and how they are bought and sold. Like we were talking about earlier in the post, the renumeration and wealth of most owners/execs is in shares, not liquid cash. Furthermore, those shares are the main tool with which wealth is hoarded and inflated because they are used to toy with scarcity, manipulate share price, etc. So placing controls on that activity would hopefully a) disincentivize share renumeration as a practice and b) force reinvestment of market gains back into the business (i.e. wages, benefits, training, upgrades) rather than stock buyback schemes and other supply manipulation tactics."

Is wishful thinking. Rich people will always find a way to hoard. I doubt reinvestment will be their go-to. Also to your point after that, how would changing these things affect market conditions? I dunno how to fix this but my thought is, Rich people will have to benefit by not losing anything and the easiest way there is to ease their tax burden but they need to be forced to pay fairly. History has shown, they won't do it voluntarily.

And the same end can be achieved through higher marginal tax rates.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

To Kfine's point, they'll just find a way to get it back if it's in the tax rate. Then you're also relying on federal governance of the tax revenue aka employees won't see any benefit from it.

>And the same end can be achieved through higher marginal tax
>rates.

How would doing this increase wages to livable standards? This would also have to be accompanied by responsible employer laws. You increase the marginal tax rate, the 1% will just cut corners to recoup profit (outsource production, customer service, etc as they have prior and/or heavily invest in automation to reduce the workforce and decrease overhead).

Without laws boxing them in to using American workers and paying them equitably, taxing them just gives more money to the Gov't to use on Military spending and squeezes the middle and lower class out of jobs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/21/2020-candidate-bernie-sanders-releases-plan-to-boost-union-membership.html

KEY POINTS
Bernie Sanders unveils a plan designed to more than double U.S. labor union membership.
It comes ahead of an AFL-CIO event in Iowa as the more than 20 Democratic presidential candidates fight for support from politically influential labor unions.

Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders released a plan Wednesday that aims to dramatically increase U.S. labor union membership.

The Vermont independent’s sweeping proposal would make it easier for workers to join unions, end the so-called right-to-work laws recently favored by Republicans and bar the replacement of striking workers, his campaign said Wednesday. It would also stop federal contracts to companies that pay workers less than $15 per hour, outsource jobs or discourage workers from forming unions, among other measures.

Through the plan, Sanders would aim to double union membership by the end of his first term in office in January 2025. He contends it would boost pay and benefits for U.S. workers who have seen money disproportionately flow to companies and their executives.

Sanders’ measure comes as the more than 20 Democratic presidential candidates fight for support from politically influential labor unions. He released it ahead of a speech later Wednesday at an AFL-CIO event in Iowa, which will hold the first Democratic presidential nominating contest in February.

Union leaders have pushed candidates to release labor plans as Democrats court the groups for endorsements. Mary Kay Henry, who leads the Service Employees International Union — one of the country’s largest — will give a speech Wednesday pushing “every 2020 presidential candidate to release a detailed plan explaining how they will make it possible for all working people to join unions.” While the political influence of unions has dwindled along with overall membership, Democrats still see the organizations as key pillars of support.

Last year, only 10.5% of wage and salary workers in the U.S. were union members — down from 20.1% in 1983, according to the Labor Department. At 7.7%, Iowa had a lower membership rate than the country as a whole.

Democrats are also fighting for position in several early voting states with a bigger union presence than Iowa, including California (14.7% membership) and Nevada (13.9% membership).

Sanders’ plan would also:

Create what his campaign called a “sectoral bargaining system” that sets standards across entire industries, rather than at individual companies
Ensure federal workers have a right to strike
Stop businesses from making workers “independent contractors” or “supervisors”
Require companies to pass along any savings they get from transitioning to Sanders’ signature “Medicare for All” proposal from current union-negotiated plans to workers in the form of wages and benefits
Keep union-sponsored health providers available to members
Sanders has pushed to insure all Americans through a single-payer, government-run plan. Democratic presidential candidates who have criticized his proposal have in part argued it would hurt union members, as they would lose the health benefits they negotiated.