Unfortunately, most of those committees don't have any actual power to enact anything. By resigning in protest, they at least prevent themselves from being used as justification to enact the things that the Trump admin is doing.
It is though. The CFPB has to be able to impose fines large enough to balk the largest financial players in one of the largest economies in the world.
Imagine if the cop that writes your speeding ticket gets paid on commission...
But if that then becomes an incentive for self-dealing, it is very problematic. Instead that money should go directly to citizens in the form of remediation and barring that, deficit paydown or underfunded government services (the VA comes to mind...)
I wouldn't complain if that was the outcome. But I might also imaging using the fines cross-agency like giving the FDA more operating budget to pursue cross-state food safety issues.
At the same time, we'd also be proponents of shutting down the connection of someone infected with a virus that is flooding the network with traffic. This would fall under the same thing, if the banks are running into a lot of problems with CC transactions to buy crypto.
Also, what the IRS says about cryptocurrency for tax purposes has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
Why do you feel these workers are not entitled to basic human dignity and respect? Why is it that any time the workers try to get some piece of the massive prosperity that they've contributed to building, they get threatened with automation? Why should they not share in the rewards for the company they helped to make prosperous?
It's only a win if they don't get laid off or have their paychecks cut.
And I'm pretty sure that the people who do it for their job, if they aren't able to find another one, would miss it.
Automation can be good, but we can't forget that these are actual people, with rent payments, food bills, and possibly families, that are currently doing these jobs. Blindly following the "Automation is great" mantra, while forgetting about them, is going to be disastrous.
You're saying this like the tech companies aren't actually doing these things. Like they're somehow misunderstood; that they're not really eroding worker protections or anything like that.
It's not at all apples and oranges. Jeff Bezos became the richest person in the world in a large part due to short changing his employees. The two are linked together.
If that's all you have to defend it with, then you have nothing to defend. People expect better of Amazon, as they should. The company turned the owner into the richest man on the planet; there is zero excuse for short changing the workers.
> If that's all you have to defend it with, then you have nothing to defend.
Sure. No problem. They'll just have no job. And you can continue to believe that.
> The company turned the owner into the richest man on the planet
Because of the value of his stock. NOT income from sales! Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with. Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse.
> there is zero excuse for short changing the workers.
That's not what short changing is. Short changing is not delivering what was promised.
There is no magic fairy that can go around giving people money, as you seem to think "just give them more money".
There's a reason we tell students to finish high school, and go to college or a trade school - to avoid these kinds of jobs.
You actually want to help them? Figure out how to give them more education. Complaining that Amazon is helping them, but "not enough" is worthless.
"Sure. No problem. They'll just have no job. And you can continue to believe that."
Ahh yes, the old, "You must lick the boots of your corporate masters for seeing to bless you with a few crumbs!" argument. It has never, ever held water.
"Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with."
That is a complete and utter lie.
"Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse."
The business as a whole, which is built on top of the retail business, is quite profitable. Them deciding to run retail at a loss does not change things.
"That's not what short changing is"
Yes, it is.
"There is no magic fairy that can go around giving people money, as you seem to think "just give them more money"."
Nobody is asking for a "magic fairy." They're pointing out that it's extremely unconscionable that the richest man in the world cannot afford to pay his workers a living wage.
"There's a reason we tell students to finish high school, and go to college or a trade school - to avoid these kinds of jobs."
And the people who don't have much choice should just go to hell? Seriously, what is it with this idea that people who weren't able to get an education, for whatever reason, don't deserve to be treated with dignity and respect?
>Because of the value of his stock. NOT income from sales! Amazon does not have extra money from sales to raise wages with. Their retail business runs at a loss actually. Raising wages would make things even worse.
The value of the stock is supposed to be a reflection of the value of the company. If their retail business is worthwhile even if running at a loss, than they could run at a larger loss with the only downside being the company's value dropping.
>You actually want to help them? Figure out how to give them more education. Complaining that Amazon is helping them, but "not enough" is worthless.
Better education takes more tax money, something Amazon has spent their entire history trying to avoid paying. And how many of them need better education before the necessary jobs at the warehouses get better conditions?
