Senator Bernie Saunders introduced a bill against Amazon.com. There are many dif

Question

Senator Bernie Saunders introduced a bill against Amazon.com. There are many different perspectives and opinions surrounding this action and I would like to see how you think and feel about this. Take a look at these starting articles but spend some time searching for other sources and perspectives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/05/bernie-sanders-introduces-stop-bezos-act-senate/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d83ce5f64637

Play devil's advocate and look at this from both sides. Which side or opinion do you agree or disagree with?

Explanation / Answer

The Stop Bezos Act is being closed seen by the business circles in the United States. In the truest sense, such legislation would be socialist in nature with aim of equitizing resources among all sections of the society. It believes that if a company does well, its employees should do well as well. Otherwise, the company shall be becoming rich by exploiting its workforce. However, its critics claim that the data being used in support for the act is statistically flawed. Moreover, the companies see this legislature as an attempt to demonize them.

A few of the points that the "Stop Bezos Act"Supporters speak on are :

1. Companies earning good profit margins do so on the backdrop of the hardwork pulled off by their workers. The workers should earn well thus.

2. Common shareholders should not bear the profits enjoyed by the unicorn companies on backfrop of not paying fair wages to the employees. If employees who claim government benefits are charged back from companies itself, it shall offset the differnce of fair wages at the same time not burdening the shareholders.

3. It will be a step in creating a just and equiatable society.

4. As the law is supposed to cover all companies with more than 500+ employees, it will almost cover all major companies.

The act is certainly a populist measure. It is aimed at the problem where Public companies steer money from the stakeholders like employees almost exclusively for the shareholders.

However, many experts have pointed out that the legislature is unworkable and may do more harm than good. A few of the points highlighted by them are :

1. Companies work to generate profits for their shareholders. It is the government's duty to set laws. If the company is complying with all the laws(Like minimum wages etc.) and makes profits, it should not be demonized.

2. The industry might choose not to hire employees who are likely to claim government protectiion benefits. This might turn counterproductive to the society.

3. A lot of government benefits are for non working households.

4. Benefits are based on multiple parameters. For e.g in one household of two people both might be employed. In another household of ten people , only one might be employed. The other household is more likely to claim government benefit. However it is more likely because of unemployement or not working by other members in household and less because of unfair wages.

5. The wages are market determined based on demand and supply.

6. The industry sees the attempt by which senators are trying to demonize them. This is specifically in a time when the industries are employing a large number of people and are actively contributing to the economic growht.

Like most other things, there is no clear cut right or wrong Answer.
Personally agree to specific points from both sides. Can also suggest that government can also look at alternative measures like increasing minimum wages etc for workers employed in certain class of companies. This way the big companies will have to fair wages.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.