That's deeply cynical. In the process, they're actually paying real people more money. Which is sort of critically important if you care about this issue and not just taking pot shots at Amazon on HN.
Against it, until their growth created a nexus in most states and required it.
Now they have been one of the most forceful lobbyists advocating for it. They call it, "Main Street Fairness."
Except the OP was talking specifically about the company's plan to lobby. Yes, they're actually paying people more money, but if everyone has that same amount of money then you get wage push inflation. Then everyone loses. This is also why minimum wage discussions always spiral out of control...there really is no good long term solution for setting minimum wages.
This starts at $20.72 (14.92 USD) for fulltime, and $25.90 (18.64 USD) for casual work.
There's higher wages based on experience and responsibilities, as well as penalty rates. Public holiday pay starts at $56.98 (41.01 USD).
As someone who has recently moved from Melbourne to Boston; if anything I feel like Australia has a lower cost of living. According to the one source I found, prices including rent in Boston, MA are 36.53% higher than in Melbourne
https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/872/storage-ser...
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
If you want to maintain your relative wealth, feudal times are great. The rest of us would rather increase absolute wealth.
I (and baldfast) had interpreted throwaway080383's comment as implying that he will be worse off from this legislation, as the increase in minimum wage will result in inflation, leading to no effective change in inflation-adjusted minimum wage, but a strong decrease in his own inflation-adjusted minimum wage. This is the standard conservative viewpoint that I've seen, which is repeated frequently, and is why I reacted so strongly to it.
To be clear, what I meant to get across was that the wage increase was not going to be a no-op due to inflation or whatever; it will make those people's lives measurably better in the short-to-medium term because not everyone's wages will be doubled at the same time.
Yeah, technically, I will be slightly worse off in the short term because Amazon will cost a little more or my dollar will go slightly less far, but I'm perfectly fine with that if it means tens of thousands of families can now feed their kids or go to the hospital. In the long run, my hope is that those kids will be more productive/innovative, which is good for everyone.
Some of us would be happy to just have enough money to do work we find productive for society, as opposed to what the market demands of us. Not everybody wants to ride the absolute wealth treadmill.
When people make $15 an hour they will need less government assistance. This will take away from corporate's profits, which has gone through the roof without an salary bumps the last 40 years.
Edit: After submitting for 1 minute The number one weapon against doing anything to help the working poor is that it will cause inflation. It's a hollow baseless argument.
I think the poster didn't think of what it meant besides what only affects himself. I have noticed that is where all discussion ends, but it really is implementing that his bottom line is negatively affected if the working poor get higher wages.
If you were working at Amazon for $15/hr before this change and the other guy was working at $12/hr, but now makes $15/hr, wouldn't you want a raise?
But some of MY customers may end up more able to pay me. I have repeatedly seen a tight correlation betweeen how well I do, and labor share of the economy. If this is real then it'll benefit me, all the more so if it becomes a trend.
Inflation certainly counteracts some of the wage growth, but it's a much stronger claim that it will result in a net lose.
Any evidence for that claim?
Bumping the minimum wage by law seems like an arbitrary temporary fix, that will need to be adjusted in another 25 years.
But a temporary somewhat arbitrary fix, might be better than nothing. Don't let perfect get in the way of good enough for now.
This balances the scale of products developed and resources spent more towards low income people and away from aristocratic goods and services.
However, in the case of Amazon, a company already very low on margins and on theory of low incomes, this would result in higher costs from the market behemoth
Even if minimum wage growth hits its practical max and creates inflation, (1) that's easy enough to detect and correct, (2) it's not a big deal if all the numbers go up together; the main loss is in reprinted menus.
There is nowhere near the level of consensus on this issue that you're implying.
> which reduces the risk of things like crime, Great Depression, and violent revolution.
Which has nothing to do with the point I made...
> (1) that's easy enough to detect and correct, (2) it's not a big deal if all the numbers go up together
Inflation is easy to detect and correct? Japan would like to have a word with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)
So remain cynical but recognize that good politics can lead to bad companies doing good things.
A higher Minimum Wage is coming and possibly be a priority for Liberals and Progressives after the November Election. Amazon has been receiving a lot of negative press recently for labor conditions and wages. Regardless of the benefits to others, there is a direct benefit to Amazon.
Now if you want cynical... I think it's borderline delusional to think that a publicly traded multi-national corporation would do anything that isn't in it's business interest.
Lol no it's still not like that unless you have a high salary career, and most people don't have those.