That was when those were little burger joints that did most of their business after school. Even then, it wasn’t an excuse to underpay people for doing honest work. Why should their labor be worth more or less depending on what their home situation is?
It does not break the 8th Commandment to hear that a company you do business with is mistreating its employees and to do an open-minded investigation about whether that is true or not. It would be rash judgment to simply assume it is true, it would be an offense against the truth to pass on the rumor with no evidence, but it isn’t wrong to ask whether information you actually do have a right to know is true or not.
I agree with you; however, that is not what was being stated by the person I was responding to. He was saying categorically that Amazon was engaging in abusive practices and tax evasion, neither of which are proven. That actually is gossip mongering, slander, or since we are writing this in print, libel, which is in fact breaking the 8th Commandment. There is a difference between saying that there is an investigation to determine the truth of an unproven accusation (there isn’t as far as I am aware), and an actual proven accusation of widespread employee abuse or actual tax evasion.
Sorry; I was responding to the title of the thread and the first post, which left these in question.
Yes, and lobbying is a legal activity which all citizens may engage in under the First Amendment. Again though, you are placing the blame of the legislating on a group that doesn’t have the power to make legislation. If you want to say that tax incentives that spur job creation is unjust or unethical (I don’t necessarily agree on either of these points prima facie), then that is fine. But who holds the responsibility and authority for passing legislation? It isn’t Amazon, it is the elected officials. This is a political mantra invented by politicians to avoid responsibility for the laws that they themselves pass. So if unjust or unethical laws are passed as you see it, the responsibility is still in the hands of the elected officials that were put in position as representatives to pass legislation, not in a third party such as Amazon. I can give money to a politician, that doesn’t mean he has to succumb to every request that I have. This is a logical fallacy used by the left, but only in cases where they disagree with the lobbying group that is asking for legislation that violates their agenda. They are perfectly fine with accepting lobbying money from all kinds of organizations such as labor unions, and even big business (such as banking, health insurance, etc.). They hold to one standard for themselves, but not for the opposing party or platform. The inconsistency of your argument is glaring my friend.
You didn’t cite a news article. You cited a personal opinion that gave no concrete examples of where any law was violated, or any unethical practice was demonstrated. That being said, you made the implicit claim that Amazon unfairly compensates its employees. We have an Amazon distribution center in my city. Looking at their payscales for the industry that they are in, they are right in the median income range for the warehousing functions that they perform here. For example, the scale in my area is between $10-$19 an hour for a warehouse associate. Amazon’s mean is $15.00 in this location, which is consistent with the practices of the industry. My source for this information was payscale.com and salary.com, objective sources that provide industry wide pay scales for HR reps.
Actually it does. Unethical behavior, specifically with regard to business generally means breaking the law to gain a competitive advantage. In this case, there is no evidence that Amazon has broken any law to gain a competitive advantage. Rather lawmakers recognized that there would be a mutual benefit from trying to bring Amazon into their region and were willing to provide tax benefits to offset the investment it would cost Amazon to move into their region. Once again though, this is a mutual decision between regional lawmakers and Amazon for the benefit of both Amazon, and the constituents in that area.
First hand testimony should be tested as any testimony in a trial should be, by weighing it against objective facts to see if the two are in agreement and the testimony is trustworthy. As I just demonstrated, Amazon pays a fair wage at the median income for that position in that region. Just because your buddy makes a subjective claim that he is being treated unfairly doesn’t mean he is being treated unfairly in any objective sense.
Fair enough, and in that light I have responded by trying to clarify what constitutes “corrupt” or “unethical” practices by businesses, and who is accountable for some of the criticisms that have been brought forth thus far.
I agree. I do not think that business should be exempt from federal or state taxes. My point however, is that taking advantage of tax loopholes created by lawmakers to spur innovation and job creation is not a corrupt practice. I agree that sweetheart tax deals should be scrutinized, I just disagree on the party that is responsible for passing tax deals that might be objectionable. I hold legislators accountable for the creation of laws that I deem to be harmful because ultimately they are the ones who create the bills, and pass the bills into law, and they are the ones that have been invested with the power and authority to do so as representatives of their constituents. The business firm has no responsibility to constituents, they have a responsibility to their employees and shareholders. If they business firm is obeying the law, and is truthful to their employees and shareholders, then they are engaging in fair business practices. My point is that you hold accountable the one who is responsible, not the entity who has not been invested with the authority and duty for a specific function.
Again, that is not a “loophole”.
theweek.com
Actually, as an economist, I would do exactly that–and tax the shareholders on the profits, like an S corp.