I like tech companies a lot, they've made our work more efficient, but I think it's high time these multi billion dollar firms, along with their 6 and 7 figure a year employees do just a little to ease the burden on the working poor who can no longer afford a roof over their head in cities across the country. I live in a tech heavy city (not in California) where kids barely out of college step into jobs paying upwards of $300,000 per year, while a janitor working full time in the same building must live in their car, due to sky high housing costs. The right wing lemmings here will scream "socialism" of course, but I think big tech must do more for the communities they occupy and make their massive profits in.
@mchill saidAs laudable as the Notion is to share the profits more equally, I don't think you will find a mechanism that could be agreed with everybody.
I like tech companies a lot, they've made our work more efficient, but I think it's high time these multi billion dollar firms, along with their 6 and 7 figure a year employees do just a little to ease the burden on the working poor who can no longer afford a roof over their head in cities across the country. I live in a tech heavy city (not in California) where kids barely ou ...[text shortened]... but I think big tech must do more for the communities they occupy and make their massive profits in.
So what exactly would your Suggestion encompass?
* Raising the pay of janitors?
Then of Course the cost of Living would increase further since now the janitor will rent a flat and thus increase the demand. Of Course other People in the same precarious conditions will also demand higher wages (justifiedly) and thus cost of Living would increase furher.
* Require tech companies to invest in Buildings for their employees?
This could actually work for the employees of that Company. However this would be Offset for wages.
* Raise taxes? Probably a non-starter at least in the USA.
@mchill saidno.
I like tech companies a lot, they've made our work more efficient, but I think it's high time these multi billion dollar firms, along with their 6 and 7 figure a year employees do just a little to ease the burden on the working poor who can no longer afford a roof over their head in cities across the country. I live in a tech heavy city (not in California) where kids barely ou ...[text shortened]... but I think big tech must do more for the communities they occupy and make their massive profits in.
a tech company does tech. it doesn't do housing.
the government is supposed to regulate things like this. Rent control, building affordable housing, etc. The money should indeed come from corporations, in this case tech companies but not just.
Now, ofc if the company wants to build living space for its employees, it should be allowed to, but not forced to.
And before right wingers start whining that the companies will just move to another country if they are forced to pay their fair share of taxes, start fukin spanking them. Sanders proposes at the very least cancelling every government contract these corporations have and conditioning every future contract on the recipient not outsourcing its jobs. If you want to save money moving jobs to Vietnam, you don't get immensely profitable contracts in the US.
@zahlanzi said“Requiring, Regulating, Raising (taxes).” These ideas above are about manipulating capitalism in a capitalistic economy/society. To do so would not result in the results you are looking for. Unintended consequences, some of which are mentioned above, would just snowball. Instead, People like the janitor should move on into better jobs......., the janitorial job would then be filled by the next entry level worker, until he moves on, and then the next guy.
no.
a tech company does tech. it doesn't do housing.
the government is supposed to regulate things like this. Rent control, building affordable housing, etc. The money should indeed come from corporations, in this case tech companies but not just.
Now, ofc if the company wants to build living space for its employees, it should be allowed to, but not forced to.
...[text shortened]... u want to save money moving jobs to Vietnam, you don't get immensely profitable contracts in the US.
If a guy stays in that job, that is his choice. If he has 4 kids, the lib mind-set is to be sure his employer pays him enough to support his family. This thread seems to be leaning that way? This makes absolutely no sense in a free market. Is it better to keep the janitor salary at a janitor-salary level, or is it better to increase the price of the factory goods so that there is enough to pay a janitor more money in his entry-level job?
This is a very key issue in the world of capitalism, where we live. Should the govt be telling a Corp what to do?
@AverageJoe1
That would be a resounding yes. That is, assuming said government wasn't already in the pockets of big business like our present POTUS, Chump, likes.
Lates CHUMPITE: EPA wants to kill the right of California and 12 other states to regulate gas mileage requirements.
GEE, I wonder who THAT helps, eh? Even the auto makers don't like Chumps actions on this one.
President Chump has eviscerated the EPA and the USDA, telling the 200 odd scientists there to move to Kansas city in 30 days or quit when there isn't even a BUILDING for them to work in the first place AND the whole design was in fact to force them to quit because Chump does not like the conclusions of the science done by the USDA, one of the last papers suppressed by Chump was about a study proving the nutritional value of rice goes down the higher the CO2 levels in the air.
FIRE THAT ASSSHOLE, WHAT DOES HE KNOW?
Wait, FIRE THE WHOLE LOT, THAT WILL SHOW THEM NOT TO DIS ME.
That kind of thing is called abrogation of responsibility.
It is the FUKKING RESPONSIBILITY of government to protect its citizens.
You think President CHUMP is doing that?
@averagejoe1 saidTypical Response - In the meantime housing costs continue to rise in cities across the county, and so do the population of working poor who must live on the streets. In the meantime your golden boy in the white house attacks the working poor for being poor, and blames everything on the Liberals.
“Requiring, Regulating, Raising (taxes).” These ideas above are about manipulating capitalism in a capitalistic economy/society. To do so would not result in the results you are looking for. Unintended consequences, some of which are mentioned above, would just snowball. Instead, People like the janitor should move on into better jobs......., the janitorial job would ...[text shortened]... y key issue in the world of capitalism, where we live. Should the govt be telling a Corp what to do?
🙄
@sonhouse saidStates rights vs Interstate commerce. Looks like we need a judge to decide?
@AverageJoe1
That would be a resounding yes. That is, assuming said government wasn't already in the pockets of big business like our present POTUS, Chump, likes.
Lates CHUMPITE: EPA wants to kill the right of California and 12 other states to regulate gas mileage requirements.
GEE, I wonder who THAT helps, eh? Even the auto makers don't like Chumps actions on this one.
...[text shortened]... KING RESPONSIBILITY of government to protect its citizens.
You think President CHUMP is doing that?
@AverageJoe1
Colbert asked genius Eliz Warren if the middle class would have a tax increase. I leaned forward for her answer, but she said “Here’s the thing........”. He interrupted her and said you always skip the answer, or some such, he could not get her to say yes, which, of course is the answer. Do you like that in a President?
@AverageJoe1
You mean like CHUMPS reversal of policy every time a Faux News talking head gives him a call or PEEAIR from NRA calls him up and says ixnay to checks, but the day before he was all in for background checks.
Or about the Saudi oil field bombing, I'll wait for approval of the Saudi prince before I make up my mind.
Yep, REAL incisive.
Yessir, CHUMP is a real leader and we need another 20 years for him to REALLY fuk up the US a hundred times more than he already has.
Slippery slope...
Once you force big biz to contribute to solving the homeless problem, then 10,000 libs will have 10,000 causes that big biz must contribute to, and this is *besides* the taxes they already pay.
There is no doubt in my mind that greedy libs will kill the goose that lays *their* golden egg as well as everyone else's. No businesses left to tax = no government.
If big biz volunteers to contribute to the cause, that is of course, fine.