Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Amazon Graffiti Increasing In Seattle (with Photos) (geekwire.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader reifman writes: If you're eagerly awaiting your city's selection for HQ2, you may want to check out GeekWire's photo gallery of anti-Amazon graffiti images from around Seattle. Animosity towards Amazon has grown in the wake of its threats over a per head tax on employees, which the city council passed and then repealed shortly after. The tax would have increased the budget for services for our 12,000+ homeless. Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos also fought the state income tax on the wealthy in 2010.

181 comments

  1. Techno salvation... by js290 · · Score: 1

    Techno salvation is a faith based proposition.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:Techno salvation... by saloomy · · Score: 0

      Never trade efficiency for entitlements. Someone else will just take the efficiency and out-compete you.

      For all the hatred on Amazon because of their low prices and competition, still almost 1/2 of online sales now goes through them. Obviously they are winning the mindshare of their consumers. If you don't like it, compete! Offer a better value proposition. I'll buy from you then.

    2. Re:Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps, but the city of Seattle sees basically none of that money. But we do wind up dealing with the consequences of Amazon's hiring practices in terms of bringing in thousands of men to the area who are being paid absurd sums of money and given housing allowances driving up the cost of rent.

      They also do bupkiss about helping the region deal with the consequences of their disruptive presence.

      The city would be getting greater benefit from Amazon if they were located somewhere else.

    3. Re:Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, god knows, if there's one thing a city needs less of, it's fully employed people paying taxes working for a successful company. It's an epidemic!

    4. Re:Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such ignorance. When you have a fraction of the population being paid that much more than the rest of the people living there it causes all sorts of problems. Just because you're too stupid and short-sighted to see that doesn't mean that there aren't problems associated. Amazon isn't the only problem, but they are far and away the biggest part of the problem.

      This is why the US economy is in the tank, people failing to grasp that having a large gap between the richest and poorest brings consequences. Combine that with the fact that Amazon basically doesn't pay local taxes or do much to curb its impact on the area and there's huge trouble coming.

    5. Re:Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they pay no taxes (other than the $250 million annually with at least 20% of that going to the city...)! Bastards!

    6. Re:Techno salvation... by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      ....... we do wind up dealing with the consequences of Amazon's hiring practices in terms of bringing in thousands of men to the area who are being paid absurd sums of money

      So what you're saying is Amazon workers with money are getting pussy and unemployed guys living in Mom's basement aren't.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    7. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of that is from the sales tax that people pay on purchases through Amazon.

      Whether or not they're in the city wouldn't change that much. But it would greatly reduce our cost of running the city if they'd get lost.

    8. Re: Techno salvation... by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but this is stupid. The guys making more money spend it, and a large portion goes into the goods and services provided by the local economy, they will eat at nice restaurants, frequent local entertainment venues, and the like. Even if that weren't the case, most of that comes in the form of stocks. Amazon is a publicly traded company. You too can enjoin in the success by buying into their company and riding the same wave.

    9. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem though is that that money isn't making its way down the ladder and there aren't an increasing number of jobs at the top. I know people now living 20 miles out of town whose rent has gone crazy due to the people moving further and further out of town because they can't afford to live in the city based on what employers are willing to pay.

      This whole arrogant idea that you too can have this if you invest completely ignores the fact that you have to be relatively well off to begin with in order to have the disposable income to invest. For people making even $20 an hour for full time work that's just not happening when even cheap apartments are going for $1k and few options exist for people that can't afford that.

      There's a reason why employed homeless are now a thing and not people that are homeless by choice either. They work full time jobs, they just don't earn enough to be able to afford housing.

      And no, the guys earning more aren't spending it in the way that you're implying, they're spending it on things that are owned by other wealthy people that then use the extra income to invest in things to raise their prices. It's gotten to the point where it's simply unaffordable for many people to eat out. And I'm not talking about eating out daily, I mean eating out occasionally.

    10. Re:Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please drive out Amazon and their workers, you woke and righteous people. You're right, Seattle would be much better without them. I'm sure once the rich people leave your city, all the real estate values will grow as the miserable Amazon drones are replaced by the woke and young artists who finally create a proper "scene" again. That's why Detroit is such a paradise - and Seattle can have that too!

    11. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The problem is {false assertion} and it's because {appeal to emotion} as evidenced by {illogical unrelated fallacy}. The solution is to {insane and retarded fantasy that can only result in the destruction of society and the death of millions}."

    12. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The city of Seattle makes a huge amount of money off amazon directly through property and sales taxes as well as indirectly through having well paid workers, most of which are younger and single so pay a much higher percentage of tax than they get back in services.

      The real problem is the City of Seattle spends money like a 5 year old in a candy store and makes zero effort to budget. While it's hard to tell if the city council is corrupt, or just plain incompetent every project they seem to chase ends up costing the tax payers far more than what they budgeted.

      That said this story is fake news, there is no real outcry against Amazon, and those that are against the company would hate them even if they didn't stand up for themselves, since they probably see all big conpanies as evil, and want us to have a workers paradise like Venezuela.

    13. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who wants to fuck any of these Amazon dorks? No one even wants to hang out with these lames, that's why the club scene is dying.

    14. Re:Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Amazon can dogfood it's cheap into Employees' lives I'll start paying attention to you.

      Let me say this: Be efficient but don't burn your employees.

    15. Re: Techno salvation... by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      every project they seem to chase ends up costing the tax payers far more than what they budgeted.

      To be fair, that's true of just about every large project, public or private, and a lot of smaller ones. Public ones are more open with the budgets, so get noticed more. Not that this excuses projects running over budget, just pointing out that government is not necessarily any worse at it, and that budgeting still seems to be more art then science at times.

    16. Re: Techno salvation... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Most of that is from the sales tax that people pay on purchases through Amazon.

      Literally not one single penny of that is from sales taxes people pay on purchases. The increase in sales taxes is on top of the $250 million which Amazon themselves paid.

      You should at least RTFA before commenting, just to make sure it doesn't directly contradict the shit you're about to make up.

    17. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economy is doing great. Tell those still stinking drug addict bums to get a job. I here Amazon is hiring.
       

    18. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is paywalled. Kind of hard to read an article that's paywalled.

    19. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet is not enough to keep the infrastructure they abuse.

    20. Re:Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody gives a shit, you stupid motherfucker.

    21. Re: Techno salvation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cate to explain?

  2. Amazon, what is it good for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing except helping the death spiral of middle class America spin faster.

    1. Re:Amazon, what is it good for? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      For watering Brazil? What it's doing in the US is a mystery, though.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. bezos and zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can fuck each other to see who's the bigger asshole.

  4. No new taxes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or was it: know new taxes?

  5. Wow by jwymanm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You want to raise taxes on people working and employing people to end up bringing more homeless people in and pushing businesses out which will reduce taxes taken in ultimately. I heard a large portion of these good climate self made homelessaires are healthy mid 20s people. Meanwhile let's blame Bezos on this because um his leadership works but your govs doesn't.

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup. I was born in Seattle, but grew up on the East Coast. For work, I have been able to travel to Seattle a couple of times and I do not recognize it. It has been many years, but the homeless problem on the West Coast is self-made.

      These governments are literally encouraging it by helping the homeless in the wrong ways. Most of them are able-bodied people who managed to become homeless -- likely without intending or otherwise wanting it -- and then never worked their way out of it.

      So the government's idea to fix the problem is to tax businesses to discourage hiring so that they can afford to pay for the homeless, which this problem will create more of over time as workers eventually leave without getting replaced. It's no wonder that Amazon is looking for HQ2 instead of increasing their stakes in Seattle where yet again a liberal government proves that they only know how to grow themselves by leaching off of everyone else, with no plan to be sustainable or actually improve things for anyone else. It's all just for power. (That's not to say that Republicans at the federal level are much better, especially now that so many of them hardly qualify as conservatives after passing a >$1 Trillion budget; it's just sadly a matter of pace)

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree. In fact, we should raise taxes on the poor and homeless to give the monies directly to Bezos. Look at all the stuff he has done - I think he could do wonders with even more money.

    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just cut all subsidies for the poor. They can starve, move away, or work. All three scenarios reduce the number of homeless people infesting Seattle. If you know Seattle, you know that "infest" is the right word.

    4. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you’re homeless doesn’t mean you don’t have a job.

    5. Re:Wow by pots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You... have no idea what you're talking about. The tax was not on working people, it was on businesses. The goal of the projects to be funded by the tax was not to bring in more homeless, it was to reduce homelessness. Even if those projects hadn't worked as intended (a prediction which you are unqualified to make), it's hard to believe that they would have increased Seattle's homeless population, seeing as the city already has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the country.

      Given that the tax only applied to companies which make $20M+ per year, and was only $275 per employee, I can't see how it would have pushed any businesses out of the city. If you found out that your electric bill was $1 more than you expected, would you move out of your house?

    6. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The goal of the projects to be funded by the tax was not to bring in more homeless, it was to reduce homelessness.

      dude, you don't have to be a city planner to know that if you make your city more attractive to the homeless, that you'll only increase the amount of homeless in your city. When people pay their taxes, they want to see their money to repair and maintain roads, to fund their libraries, to pay their firemen, to keep their street lights on to keep their parks clean, to provide all kinds of city services that benefit ALL its citizenry and not just one resource draining segment of it.

    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blow jobs don't count

    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tax was not on working people, it was on businesses. The goal of the projects to be funded by the tax was not to bring in more homeless, it was to reduce homelessness.

      That's a naive way to look at it.
      Increased taxes on business gets passed onto consumers, so consumers foot the bill ultimately.
      Make it easier for homeless people and more homeless people will flock to the area.
      Good intentions don't always result in good outcomes.

    9. Re:Wow by pots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      to provide all kinds of city services that benefit ALL its citizenry

      This is a sentiment that I can get behind, I have expressed my dislike for discriminatory benefits on many occasions. However, a soup kitchen (for example) is not discriminatory. The fact that you don't need it yourself at this moment, does not mean that it isn't there for you if and when you do need it. Your children may not need an orphanage... yet. "But I don't have any children and never will!" you say? Helping your neighbors' children helps you in the long run, in the form of reduced crime and associated costs, and a stronger economy and higher property values. The same applies to helping your neighbors who are not children.

      Here's a tip for you: fire insurance is not a waste of money, even though your house may not currently be on fire.

    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better is to raise taxes on middle-income people. They have more money to take away than the poor and there are more of them. Funnel that money directly to Bezos and all the problems will be solved. Right?

    11. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The homeless I see in downtown Vancouver WA are...f'd up. They're unhireable, even if they did want to try and work despite their mental health issues or their borked, drug-addled brains.

      Well, I'm sure someone could do the "50%" model - pick them up in a van at 5am, drop them off at select sites for a few hours, and then pick them up later to take them back to their hooch, in exchange for 50% of their "income". (yes, someone was doing that in Seattle in the 80's...), so in that respect they're "hireable".

    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear the homeless make really good protesters. Maybe they can get hired by a temp agency that supplies protesters for antifa and blm groups.

    13. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking imbecile.

      They don't print money. Literally all of it comes from customers, who are majority middle class workers.

      An increase in costs is a direct increase on consumers. This is basic fucking math.

    14. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't work. Anti-fa and blm don't have any money, and the former will assault anybody that does.

    15. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soros got bucks

    16. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a pure money grab by the city council. They have wasted millions on horribly ineffective and inefficient programs. They have no real plan, and they are unable to actually provide a report on where there numbers came from.

    17. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your children may not need an orphanage ... yet.

      dun dun dun... (cue ominous music)

    18. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to raise taxes on people working and employing people to end up bringing more homeless people in and pushing businesses out which will reduce taxes taken in ultimately. I heard a large portion of these good climate self made homelessaires are healthy mid 20s people. Meanwhile let's blame Bezos on this because um his leadership works but your govs doesn't.

      The fine print stated that the Seattle City Council had the right to change the "allocation of funds" for the Head Tax at any time in the future. This was nothing more than a free money grab while dangling "homelessness" as the tag line. I live here and think these liberals in charge scam the monies they receive. Who has the power to audit a city govt to find corruption?

    19. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you are talking about reducing crime, gentrification definitely helps with that. Bringing in more educated people who make more money takes care of itself. Keeping in poor people used to handouts, controlled by gangs establishing turfs and keeping their properties prices low from their own stupidity will definitely work in the opposite direction.

    20. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, wasn't Musk the chosen one? He is way dreamy than Mr. Bezos, But I bet Mr Darcy would ve a Better recipient to all the money.

    21. Re:Wow by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Given that the tax only applied to companies which make $20M+ per year, and was only $275 per employee, I can't see how it would have pushed any businesses out of the city. If you found out that your electric bill was $1 more than you expected, would you move out of your house?

      Could those businesses have afforded this special tax? Almost certainly. Do you think the tax would have stopped there? Almost certainly not. Amazon and their counterparts are stopping a precedent before it gets started.

  6. Re:Not bad by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    That's child's play now. You haven't really made it as a despised company until you have some nutter try to shoot up your headquarters.

  7. Services? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The tax would have increased the budget for services for our 12,000+ homeless.

    Not really. There was no plan in place to pass the tax revenues on to the needy. A few ideas about building city subsidized housing with an income qualification level of 125% of the neighborhood median (read: subsidies for hipster condos). Most of the revenue would have disappeared into the general fund. And be a camel's nose under the income tax tent.

    1. Re: Services? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup!

    2. Re:Services? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Those rainbow crosswalks don't pay for themselves, yanno. Nor do those overpriced tiny houses.

  8. Big is in, little is out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Eventually a big entity like Amazon creates negative side effects that people begin to realize are not good. People lose jobs, competition is eliminated and we have seen this before with big box lumber companies killing mom and pops yards, small hardware stores have died out, WalMart did its own share of killing small retail. It was inevitable that Amazon would eventually create some real imbalances that people would begin to be upset over.

    1. Re:Big is in, little is out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least WalMart pays local taxes in the towns and cities they were located in. And despite paying relatively low wages on a national level, they were often on par and over to what the local small retail stores were paying their employees. Amazon, otoh, got the advantage of selling merchandise tax free for almost two decades consequently devastating local retail brick and mortar store and local tax bases as it became more popular.

    2. Re: Big is in, little is out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in Seattle have always paid sales tax on Amazon purchases, so while some town in Kansas could complain about Amazons taxes, Seattle really can't, as not only do they collect sales tax on all Washington sales, Amazon pays a huge amount in property taxes, and also pays its employees extremely well in Seattle.

    3. Re:Big is in, little is out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least WalMart pays local taxes in the towns and cities they were located in. And despite paying relatively low wages on a national level, they were often on par and over to what the local small retail stores were paying their employees. Amazon, otoh, got the advantage of selling merchandise tax free for almost two decades consequently devastating local retail brick and mortar store and local tax bases as it became more popular.

      At least Amazon pays its employees enough so they don't qualify for welfare. WalMart costs us $6.2 billion. Oh, and guess who had money hiding off shore in a tax haven? Walmart.

  9. Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These people want to kill it then sodomize and defecate on the corpse.

    Seattle acts like tech businesses are the serfs when there's cities literally fighting each other to get them to relocate.

    1. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people want to kill it then sodomize and defecate on the corpse.

      We're not interested in your perversions, you sick lowlifer.

    2. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love these whiners. Oh sure, they "care" about small businesses, they just don't "care" with their wallet. They'll care with their hashtags and the spray paint they likely ordered from PrimeNow or took an Uber to a big chain instead of using mass transit. They're going to spray up their city, maybe paint Bezo's head to look like a penis, and then order something from Amazon that they'd otherwise have to travel an hour out of the city to find. When they're done being mad for internet points maybe they'll settle in to a show on Netflix instead of visiting a bodega that rents DVD's. It's every bit as dumb, and every bit as useless, as those Starbucks boycotts that involved buying from Starbucks.

    3. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bezos to Seattle: Fuck you, I got mine.

    4. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people want to kill it then sodomize and defecate on the corpse.

      Seattle acts like tech businesses are the serfs when there's cities literally fighting each other to get them to relocate.

      Classic trickle down economics.

    5. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such ignorance. Amazon doesn't contribute to the area any more than they would if they were located elsewhere. The citizens of Seattle truly want them the hell out of here before they ruin the city any more. Those that don't are mostly either working for Amazon or came after Amazon destroyed the city.

      They're driving up the rent and property values to the point where somebody making $100k can barely afford to buy a house and anybody making less than $25k probably can't afford rent. They're doing absolutely nothing to help with the consequences of them being located here and what little taxes we do collect from Amazon employees are grossly insufficient to cover the costs that come from Amazon's presence here.

      Those cities that are fight each other to get them to relocate are fun by morons. Having Amazon is like arguing over who has the largest leech attached and trying to figure out how to lure it away from somebody else.

    6. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bezos to rest of the world: Fuck you, I'm gonna get yours too.

    7. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous coward to fellow anonymous coward: Fuck you I'm gonna get mine from Amazon in two days. And if it doesn't fit, I'll send it back with Amazon paying for the shipping.

    9. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean areas that subsidize big employers and don't plan ahead usually lose out in their race to the bottom. There is always going to be a city, state, or country that will host these kind of leeching companies for a nickel cheaper than is sustainable in the long run. Quit downloading the true costs to the people.

    10. Re:Kill the goose that lays golden eggs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And if it doesn't fit

      Just how big is that dilator you bought?

  10. Already resolved by pubwvj · · Score: 1, Funny

    This has already been resolved. Amazon announced this week that they're siting HQ2 in our town here in Vermont. Being that Vermont is a third world country the wages and cost of living are lower which will save Amazon billions of dollars even without Vermont's President Snelling giving them any tax breaks. In turn

    Amazon has promised to bring Vermont into the 21st century by upgrading it's information highway bring the Internet to all Vermont citizens.

    Amazon will instantly become the #1 employer in Vermont. The minimum wage in Vermont is $11/hr but Vermont makes exceptions for robots who are employed on many dairy farms and pig farms where they milk the sows and cows.

    You may be wondering about cows vs sows. Vermont is a world leader in the production of maple syrup and milk. The secret on the milk, which allowed Vermont to beat out Wisconsin, is that sow pigs have 14 to 18 teats so they can easily produce more milk than cows and sows produce twice as much butter fat in the milk making for more butter and cheese.

    1. Re:Already resolved by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You can milk just about anything with nipples.

    2. Re:Already resolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satire requires more than inane rambling.

    3. Re: Already resolved by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      We here have been thinking about establishing a tomcat dairy. With the right hormone therapy, tomcats can become prolific dairy animals.

      Tomcat cheese, tomcat yogurt... the possibilities are many!

    4. Re: Already resolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not milk the homeless?

    5. Re:Already resolved by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      You may be wondering about cows vs sows.

      GET OUT OF MY HEAD

    6. Re: Already resolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a modest proposal. You should write up something swiftly to take advantage of its prominence in the public's mind before it goes down the tub drain.

    7. Re:Already resolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pork... The other white milk.

  11. I like to lick it & stick it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lick it & stick it

    1. Re: I like to lick it & stick it by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I, too, prefer to pay my bills with paper checks, an envelope and a stamp. Unfortunately, stamps are not lickable any more. The post office sells adhesive-back stamps distributed on release paper.

  12. That can be said for all for-profit businesses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their whole point is to take as much money as possible,while giving back aslittle as possible. Always juuust scraping past outright theft and robbery. Or redefining "theft" and "robbery.

    Or get murdered by the competition that does.

    Note how none of the above mentions improvements of humanity of life anywhere.

    I want for-betterment businesses! And incentives that actually make it a good decisison. (I'd start with criminalizing profit ... as opposed to actually earning your money. But with said crime ruling the country, I can see that being rather unpopular.)

  13. I live in Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not even 5 minutes ago I saw graffiti that said "KILL BEZOS"

    Never seen anything like that before.

    1. Re:I live in Seattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bezos doesn't want to fund more of our misguided and disastrous socialist experiments? KILL BEZOS!

  14. Rage Against the Machine! by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of my favorite bands is Rage Against the Machine. They are very anti-corporate, just like these folks. I just bought their latest album on Amazon for $18.98. Free shipping too! I like to be different and fight the power!

    1. Re:Rage Against the Machine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you paying shipping on an MP3 file?

    2. Re: Rage Against the Machine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heavy metal costs more to ship

    3. Re:Rage Against the Machine! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      The internet has spoken. Don't buy music!

    4. Re:Rage Against the Machine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you add the word "shipping" to that sentence?

    5. Re: Rage Against the Machine! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Why are you paying shipping on an MP3 file?

      Please. Like any good hipster, he got it on vinyl.

  15. Tax people who work... by RedK · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... to give the money to those who don't.

    If you oppose that, you might be one of the people who don't work. There's a really easy way to fix your issue : Get a job.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    1. Re: Tax people who work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only service the homeless need is a one-way boat ride from a dock in Seattle to some 100 miles out over Juan de fuca rift. Should not cost more than 20 per head. Homeless people do not contribute to society, have zero merit and are non redeemable. They should be eliminated for the good of all future humankind.

    2. Re: Tax people who work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about people that don't own a home but are just renting? What if I sell my home but haven't bought another one? What if I don't have a home but live with someone that does? What if I get seasick? Your idea isn't very well thought out.

    3. Re:Tax people who work... by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      ... to give the money to those who don't.

      There's a difference between don't and won't. Many homeless people have issues with mental health, substances, or both. There's enough money in the economy to offer them at least some assistance, and potentially get at least some of them back on their feet and functioning members of society again. It may not work for all people, of course, as some have issues that are hard to solve, and not all interventions are successful.

      People not wanting to work is another matter, but that's relatively few people.

      Also, there are people who are homeless (e.g. sofa surfing) who also work.

    4. Re: Tax people who work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if you move out your home at 15 because you don't want to be beaten by your parents every night, and end up on the streets you don't deserve to live.

  16. Re:Not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Protesting during the middle of the night with the help of a trebuchet would be cool.

  17. fool by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    There are not enough jobs. Even if you are unaware of the problem and how it has been a GROWING problem since technology advanced (since you can't measure technological progress you can't create a solid linkage but a reasonable look does make it look like the two are connected.... which they are.)

    AI and robotics will make it so you can't avoid shortage of jobs forever. Can't blame the victims forever and you can't smear them with cherry picked examples forever... unless you can isolate yourself from the world and be ignorant of what is going on (yes, that is also a reference to the 1st world of the past and present.)

    1. Re:fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are not enough jobs.

      There are more jobs than people out of work

      GROWING problem

      You sure?

    2. Re:fool by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Dick's is ALWAYS hiring... Just swing by one of their stores and fill out an application. They pay well ($16/hour to start), offer full medical, tuition reimbursement, childcare assistance, and time off for volunteer work. Yeah, you'll work your butt off (they don't tolerate slackers), but it's a step up the ladder.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:fool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I shoot heroin on my break?

    4. Re:fool by q_e_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't imagine that there are places for all homeless people. Many homeless people have too many mental health or substance issues (often the latter is self-medication for the former) to make that transition without assistance. Sometimes people are homeless (and I know someone for whom this applied) due to difficult family situations causing them to leave home when young, and then falling through the gaps of social provision (although that can be multi-factorial in terms of what that happens). Basically, it's complicated, and simplistic solutions are unlikely to work.

    5. Re:fool by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      About 40 to 60% of homeless work sometimes but do not hold a regular job. I would surmise it's not because they are physically unable to hold a job, but a strong chance that addiction or simple lack of motivation interferes. That would slash homelessness in half right there.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:fool by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's also things like marriage breakups, abusive relationships, or sometimes just poverty (if you don't have enough for the deposit and first month's rent up front, then unlucky). Others can be those released from prison with little to no support network, money, or way of accessing housing or work Access to better mental health services, support for getting off substances (assuming not self-medication), support for those suffering from abuse, and methods to help people raise deposits, and support for ex-cons would probably help reduce homelessness. In many cases addiction is a response to other issues, so treating root causes would be helpful. As I noted before, there are multiple reasons someone might become homeless, so simplistic suggestions that treat people the same are not likely to be effective (not that I am saying you have suggested that - just a general point).

    7. Re:fool by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are LOTS of reasons why someone may be homeless - and there are LOTS of ways out of it, including starting to work at Dick's. GP stated there are not enough jobs - but I've shown there are jobs that take NO special skills, pay a decent wage, include full benefits. But that would mean someone would have to WORK and we can't have that, forcing people to actually do something they may not want to do. Better to leave them on the streets and rave against Amazon, Boeing, Microsoft, Costco, and all the other companies that built the Puget Sound economy.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:fool by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Of course we can have people working. But many homeless people already work, so getting people who work to work doesn't seem to be solving the issue of them not having a home.

      There are a few who are not working who won't yet be capable of working if their issues (mental health, most likely) are too great, which means some sort of gateway required before they can work at Dick's or anywhere else. For example, you won't get that much work out of someone with severe and untreated schizophrenia, and that's not about what someone might want to do, but what they are capable of doing. In that case, treating the disease is the better option. Schizophrenia and PTSD are not uncommon among amongst those who are homeless and not working, and of those with PTSD it's not uncommon for them to be ex-members of the armed forces.

      As I've said before, simplistic mantras are not the solution, as there are multiple causes of homelessness, and multiple routes out. And not everyone can work at Dick's. Trying a variety of different things that fit the particular issues that a person has is likely to be more effective.

    9. Re:fool by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Employment is a human problem.
      FYI, most humans DO NOT LIVE IN THE USA.

    10. Re:fool by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Employment is a human problem.
      FYI, most humans DO NOT LIVE IN THE USA.

      Furthermore, if you think citing 1 employer is a rebuttal of my statement assuming it's limited to just one of the BEST performing economies you need practice. Literal simplistic interpretation is slowing you down in argumentative distractions when you could be actually thinking about problems.

      You can't even get good unemployment numbers because the only solid number is politically skewed by government to filter out a much larger number of people who are long term unemployed and they also do not properly count underemployed. There are many more underemployed people in the world who do not have enough jobs or a single decent job to lift themselves out from poverty, certainly there are not enough jobs to give everybody gainful employment at a level acceptable to 1st world minimums you must at least recognize this?
      So without capital and/or creativity everybody is supposed to create a market for themselves? Supply side economics 101... if you make/do something then the customers will come and buy? (then why do we have massively huge corporate welfare in successful economies?) This situation is not unlike an ART-Based economy which can't work because success in ART is based upon popularity (exclusivity by definition or in economic terms the art market over saturates quickly...)

      When robotics and AI boost productivity high enough you can't close your eyes to reality you'll have to face reality.

    11. Re:fool by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Indeed, people underemployed in low-wage jobs can, and do, end up homeless. Sometimes that is due to low skills, sometimes ill-health, sometimes child care requirements, sometimes due to personal issues like mental illness or substance abuse, or lack of jobs.

      Once homeless it can be hard to even get work as a permanent address is often required, and increasingly applications are done online, and you need to be moderately clean with reasonable clothes for a job. Thus, it can be difficult to get a new job if actually on the street, even if you want one. Many who are homeless and employed are sofa surfing, though, but that can easily end up as being on the street.

  18. 12 thousand homeless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF third world country are we talking about? SERIOUSLY?

  19. Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Amazon is an enormous concentration of wealth.

    Never mind that it done through hard labor and smart business practice.

    There's always going to be people envious of that.

    And there's always people who think they deserve a "cut" of it. Even if they don't.

    And, considering the fact that Seattle is every bit as crazy socialist as the bastions in Commiefornia, and it's no surprise.

    Remember, the money YOU earn is not YOUR money. It's OUR money...comrade...

    Fuck these people and the horse they rode in on.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by lucasnate1 · · Score: 2

      Money is a construct made by the state, and in general, assuming that things are yours as if it was a law of nature and not something you have to constantly fight for, is naive at best.

    2. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Never mind that it done through hard labor and smart business practice.

      Don't forget big wet kiss Congress gave to Amazon and other online retailers to allow them to sell merchandise tax free for many years which gave them a huge advantage over brick and mortar stores. That wasn't done through hard labor or smart business practices. That was done because Congress is stupid and didn't realize just how devastating this effect would be on local retailers and tax bases. Now a local city governments want Amazon to give a little more in taxes and, guess what, Bezos won't pay and threatens to pull out. What a good citizen this guy is.

    3. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /\
      || Found the freshman econ major.
      ||

    4. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to begin with you took the land... OF COURSE people want it back. They want to be allowed to live on the planet without having to submit to your fascist regime. You are an excellent child of the system and you should be rewarded.

    5. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Never mind that it done through hard labor and smart business practice.

      Don't forget big wet kiss Congress gave to Amazon and other online retailers to allow them to sell merchandise tax free for many years which gave them a huge advantage over brick and mortar stores. That wasn't done through hard labor or smart business practices. That was done because Congress is stupid and didn't realize just how devastating this effect would be on local retailers and tax bases. Now a local city governments want Amazon to give a little more in taxes and, guess what, Bezos won't pay and threatens to pull out. What a good citizen this guy is.

      That big wet kiss came from the Supreme Court, not Congress, and it was bestowed upon Sears Roebuck, not Amazon. They just played by the rules of the day. It's funny how quickly you anti-corporation hippies turn on new victims. Just a few years ago, all the venom was reserved for WalMart. Now you want a bigger piece of the pie with newly invented taxes designed just for Amazon. I'd love to see them pull up stakes and leave you alone with your great Utopia.

    6. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.orgwiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act

      The 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act is a United States law authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden, and signed into law as title XI of Pub.L. 105–277 on October 21, 1998 by President Bill Clinton in an effort to promote and preserve the commercial, educational, and informational potential of the Internet.[1][2] The law bars federal, state and local governments from taxing Internet access and from imposing discriminatory Internet-only taxes such as bit taxes, bandwidth taxes, and email taxes. It also bars multiple taxes on electronic commerce

      https://www.pcworld.com/article/2045750/senators-want-permanent-ban-on-internet-access-taxes.html
      In 2013, it was made permanent due to lobbying by "teh Internet Tax Freedom Act Coalition to lobby for a permanent moratorium.

      Coalition members include Amazon.com, AT&T, Comcast, CTIA, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, U.S. Telecom, and Verizon Communications. "

      Really anon, put a little more effort into it

    7. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Everyone else just "had" their land yea?

    8. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      assuming that things are yours as if it was a law of nature and not something you have to constantly fight for, is naive at best.

      I'm perfectly fine with fighting for what's mine. What I object to is weak-kneed cunts trying to get the state to use force on their behalf. You want my shit? Come and get it yourself. I'll be waiting.

    9. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong! Freshman Sociology major. A freshman Economics major would know that money is a commonly agreed upon store of wealth.

    10. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps because local retailers were dumb and thought "this Internet thing will blow over" or "people will always love coming to brick and mortar stores" and then did anti-customer shit like refusing to set up working websites or (in cases of fast food, book stores and coffee places) providing WiFi.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The thing is, what's "yours" is a matter of social contract. When you break one part of the social contract, the rest becomes weaker.

      That means that if you aren't taking care of the relatively helpless, the social contract has become weaker, and those who have been abandoned feel, justly, that they have little obligation to obey the rules of the social contract that don't favor them.

      Title to property, and rights of any sort, depend on the social contract. Those who are wise prefer to strengthen it, even if only for their own selfish reasons. When Madame de Pompadour said "AprÃs nous, le déluge" ("After us, the flood"), it was likely not a statement of egotism, but of helplessness. She probably saw no way to prevent the revolution. Well, she wasn't notably insightful, but I don't see any way she could have prevented it either. The social contract had been too weakened to endure.

      Seattle should respond by making emergency plans for Amazon's leaving, and pass a tax 10 times as high. Or 20 times. Any place that subsidizes a "large employer" at well above value should prepare for a disaster, because sooner or later it will arrive. The problem is that most politicians, and also most businessmen, have a very short time horizon.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      Strength is also dynamic and changing. You may not enjoy it, but if they manage to turn the masses and the laws against you, then in the way that counts, they were stronger than you. That's what darwinists and capitalists do not understand, if you play this power game to the end, there is no fair and unfair, just success and failure.

    13. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Title to property, and rights of any sort, depend on the social contract.

      "Social contract" in the sense that you're using it translates roughly to "things we all agree to", and there isn't a single thing that we all agree to. There are always numerous factions at play, and there are always those who prefer to set out on their own, go against the grain and use force to get what they want. The only way to stop either of those groups is by applying an opposite force.

      So, outside of intellectual circle jerks (out in the real world), "social contract" just boils down to force. Those with power make and enforce the rules. In feudal societies that meant the kings, lords, and sometimes the church. In modern democratic societies it means some mix of the will of the majority combined with special interests. Either way, regardless of who is writing the rules, the "social contract" still comes down to those with power imposing their will on those without. So what you call a social contract I just call negotiation and the judicious use of force.

      When Madame de Pompadour said "Apres nous, le daluge" ("After us, the flood"), it was likely not a statement of egotism, but of helplessness. She probably saw no way to prevent the revolution. Well, she wasn't notably insightful, but I don't see any way she could have prevented it either. The social contract had been too weakened to endure.

      Yeah, the hold of the ruling powers over the rest had been weakened. They could no longer enforce their rules. That's the kind of thing that happens when those in power no longer have it. It doesn't matter if they're benevolent rulers or brutal ones; the moment they can no longer effectively use force (or at a minimum, credibly project the illusion that they can use force) to impose their will, a new faction will step in to fill the gap. Either that or society will descend into anarchy, and THEN a new faction will step in to fill the gap. Same result either way.

      Seattle should respond by making emergency plans for Amazon's leaving, and pass a tax 10 times as high. Or 20 times.

      Sounds great. While they're doing that they should also tell people to start forming bread lines. The sooner they get in line, the less likely they are to starve.

      Any place that subsidizes a "large employer" at well above value should prepare for a disaster, because sooner or later it will arrive. The problem is that most politicians, and also most businessmen, have a very short time horizon.

      I've never heard of a place that did that outside of communist countries. Places with planned economies tend to subsidize all kinds of ridiculous ventures which end up causing all sorts of disasters. Famines are a staple (har!) of such places. Meanwhile, in capitalist economies, regional governments tend to subsidize businesses which actually create value for the local economy, which is exactly why Seattle shitcanned their stupid head-tax idea. They didn't want to lose all of the benefits which Amazon brought with it.

    14. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's what darwinists and capitalists do not understand, if you play this power game to the end, there is no fair and unfair, just success and failure.

      "Darwinist" is a really stupid word made up by religious nitwits in order to paint the theory of evolution as some kind of competing religion, so I would strongly suggest you avoid using it if you want to be taken seriously.

      Outside of that, people who understand natural selection and capitalists both generally understand that it's not about fair and unfair. They're not the ones whining about fairness. It's typically the socialists and commies who whine about how "things aren't fair" and we need to take other peoples stuff in order to make it fair.

    15. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      typically the socialists and commies who whine about how "things aren't fair" and we need to take other peoples stuff in order to make it fair.

      This can also be perceived as whining, that's my point. If you argue that everyone who feels that they were taken advantage are whiners, the same can be used against you.

    16. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      This can also be perceived as whining, that's my point. If you argue that everyone who feels that they were taken advantage are whiners, the same can be used against you.

      Can you point to an example of me saying that their whining isn't fair?

      No?

      Then I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing for at this point ...

    17. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Before the 1980's, possibly the 1960's, a longer time view was common is business. Then the Harvard Business School started pushing a short time horizon.

      There have been lots of groups building large projects with a time horizon in the multiple decades. Many of them failed due to changed circumstances (a long horizon has its problems), but large projects pretty much demand a long horizon to pay for themselves. But part of the reason the US Senate was designed with overlapping six year terms was to foster a longer time horizon. You can argue that it wasn't effective, but the intent was there. The Communists got the idea for their "5 year plans" from the west. When they got it, it was cutting down the normal cycle of business planning, not extending it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It's not about a "longer term horizon", it's about not changing shit too often. To apply it to your amazon complaint, the city might make a 6 year deal with Amazon in order to ensure some stability. That gives Amazon 6 years to build and run their business, and it gives the city 6 years of revenue at a relatively steady rate.

      If, on the other hand, the city wanted a 1 year deal, Amazon might tell them to fuck off. Too much instability and uncertainty. It might take a year to build the new warehouse, just in time for a new "deal" to completely change the financial situation. Nobody wants to deal with that mess.

      The fact that you have a 6 year term doesn't mean you're inherently planing things for the next 6 years. It just means that you can guarantee your word for at least that long.

      As for long term planning, it can be good, and it can be bad. The soviet "5 year plan" blew chunks because in year 1-2 it was obvious that it would fail. But they kept pushing it anyway because Comrade Cumquat wanted it done and those who disagreed mysteriously disappeared. Long term plans are completely useless if you're unwilling to adapt to include new data.

      Of course you don't seem to have looked at ANY data, otherwise you wouldn't have been insinuating that Seattle is subsidising Amazon excessively, and you CERTAINLY wouldn't have proposed increasing taxes by an order of magnitude. You seem to be just making shit up as you go along, partly informed by a sophomoric understanding of economics and history.

    19. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      And there's always people who think they deserve a "cut" of it. Even if they don't.

      Obama already addressed your point in his 'You Didn't Build That' speech. Even the most successful business relies on public infrastructure and service to function so those who benefit the most should contribute the most.

    20. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Sorry, money is a first level abstraction of goods and services.

      Is it artificial? YES. But they represent goods YOU produce and the labor expended to produce them or deliver a service.

      So yes, it's YOURS.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    21. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Sorry but when you use government force to "entitle yourself", YOU are the one who has broken the social contract.

      The social contract in the US says you are entitled to your property, your goods and your earnings.

      If you want to come and just rip that way, prepare to eat a fucking bullet in the civil war.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    22. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And Obama was DEAD WRONG.

      Those who benefit the most DO contribute the most.

      Or do you think things like property ownership and massive, multi-tier employment IN NO WAY contribute to society?

      How many people does Amazon employ directly?
      How many people at their partners, service providers, and downstream business adjuncts do they employ indirectly?
      How much money does their simple EXISTENCE pump into the economy?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    23. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      "They represent goods YOU produce".

      Weird, I never saw a lawyer or a politician produce anything,.

    24. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Mark4ST · · Score: 1

      Commiefornia,

      Has this account been seized by a Russian chatbot?

    25. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *pet*pet*pet*

      There there, troll, it'll be okay

    26. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      They also deliver services.

      Why is this so hard to grok?

      Oh yeah. #YouWantFreeShit

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    27. Re: Because OF COURSE it is! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Previous reports have been suggesting that Seattle is subsidizing Amazon by providing services at considerably below cost. (Where cost to Amazon is figured based on the taxes that they pay, and services include things like transit, garbage collection, road maintenance, law enforcement, etc.)

      Now it's true I didn't verify that those reports are correct, so in a sense you are correct. OTOH, I'm not making Seattle's decisions for them, so I'm not about to invest the kind of effort that validation would require.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    28. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And Obama was DEAD WRONG.

      Those who benefit the most DO contribute the most.

      Or do you think things like property ownership and massive, multi-tier employment IN NO WAY contribute to society?

      How many people does Amazon employ directly? How many people at their partners, service providers, and downstream business adjuncts do they employ indirectly? How much money does their simple EXISTENCE pump into the economy?

      You seem to be arguing something different to what I was.
      The you_didn't_build_that speech doesn't mean you don't get to benefit from your hard work. Bezos is the most wealthiest capitalist of the modern era and he was an Obama supporter. How does that fight in with your angry Fox News everything Obama does is bad routine?

    29. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by proibido · · Score: 1

      I think the point is exactly that: when a corporation reaches a determined size it's impossible to maintain a free market, competition and all that. For me that's the biggest caveat of the free market capitalism. There should be some sort of ceiling for companies regarding competition. In a simplistic example, something like NBA does.

    30. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      So, basically, penalizing a company for being successful.

      I could see some GLARING problems with that.

      So long as they aren't a monopoly, abusing employees or customers or breaking the law, I don't see why government intervention should be forced on them.

      I ALSO don't believe that anyone else is entitled to "a cut" of the proceeds just because they decide it should happen and have access to governmental force.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    31. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. No I'm not.

      The "you didn't build that" speech was bullshit.
      Sure, it wasn't saying you shouldn't be able to benefit from your hard work.
      What it was doing is forwarding a notion that someone (usually the government) should be able to arbitrarily limit HOW MUCH you should be able to benefit from your hard work.

      And basically using the bogus excuse of "infrastructure cost freeloading".

      Sure, a lot of the infrastructure being used wasn't initially paid for by many businesses.
      But their corporate taxes, and the taxes of those they employ, go towards the maintenance and refurbishment of those pieces of infrastructure.
      The money they pay out in power bills goes towards keeping grid power providers operational.

      So the insistence that one should just cut the bottoms off their pockets and accept any and all financial encumbrances, simply because some government yoohoo thinks they should be able to use them like a piggy bank...Bullshit, first to last.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    32. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      No. No I'm not.

      The "you didn't build that" speech was bullshit.

      You know that just repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true?

      So the insistence that one should just cut the bottoms off their pockets and accept any and all financial encumbrances, simply because some government yoohoo thinks they should be able to use them like a piggy bank...Bullshit, first to last.

      That's an interesting interpretation. And it only reconfirms my original claim, that you are arguing something different to me.

    33. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Well, since you simply referenced "You didn't build that" and didn't actually state your point...
      Technically, you didn't argue anything. You simply stated "I disagree".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    34. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by proibido · · Score: 1

      Breaking the law and bending the law are two different things, just look at Uber problems in so many countries :) Big corporations use lobbying and create their own laws before they break it or when they're about to get caught. They have a huge influence on all the laws regarding their businesses. Abusing employees is tricky. If unemployment rate is high enough most of the people accept about any conditions just to get some food on the table. We have to decide if what matters is the business game in real life - which is like the Monopoly(tm) game, only one person gets everything in the end and all the others lose, it's inevitable. Or, we provide enough for everybody live with comfort and make the business game secondary with stricter rules. Of course the group of people in charge of those business won't let happen because their wealth wouldn't be of 69,000,000,000 but 690,000,000 which I think it's more than enough for someone with a lavish lifestyle.

    35. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Well, since you simply referenced "You didn't build that" and didn't actually state your point... Obama already said it better than I could. And what he said doesn't much with your claim. Technically, you didn't argue anything. You simply stated "I disagree".

      Even the best capitalist in the world (which ironically right now is Jeff Bezos) still depends on centralised infrastructure and services to make money. And that needs to be paid for by everyone, even Jeff Bezos knows that.
      You have taken the extreme view that contributing to common service is identical to theft. An extreme claim which will need some extreme evidence to support.

    36. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. No I haven't. So please stop attempting to put words in my mouth.

      What I'm saying is that business owners should not be arbitrarily used as a bottomless piggy bank.
      Nor should they allow themselves to be used in such a way.

      Nobody is saying that business owners should contribute to infrastructure.
      They do. Through their taxes and other expenses.

      After that, who the fuck should have the right to tell them they don't contribute 'enough"?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    37. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is that business owners should not be arbitrarily used as a bottomless piggy bank.

      And no-one has ever claimed this. Or do you have citations of anyone credible making this claim?

      After that, who the fuck should have the right to tell them they don't contribute 'enough"?

      We the people... You may have heard that phrase somewhere previously....

  20. Re:Too many conservatives on this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    open your mouth wide commie and swallow it allllllll down.

  21. catch one "artist" by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Hang him out for three days in front of hus "creative" work.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  22. Who undercuts what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iirc, a company like Amazon sidesteps competition and undermines competition by avoiding the verry price points. Commerce was meant to distribute operation costs of Institutional government, and Amazon has facilitated it's customers to opt-out of funding their own government services. Kind of like spending money on US Mail stamps that you made yourself, is Amazon an illegal business model when commerce accelerates the loss of jobs? Plenty of songs sing about the effects of anti-competitive commerce such as JOHNY CASH singing John Henry's Hammer.
    Of'course explaining how Amazon has ruined the economy by it's business model of illegal commerce is an artform itself; the transfer of interests and rights by spurious currencies, has not been retained by Amazon as an agency of government. The government must prosecute the customers and stockholders primarily.

  23. Re:Too many conservatives on this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not commies yet, Democratic Socialists. As they mature they become commies.

  24. Re: Too many conservatives on this thread by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    No, as people mature they become more conservative. It's called 'accumulating a stake in the real world' and 'learning through experience.'

    I couldn't possibly explain it to the fiery young bucks who 'are going to change the world' because it's more the kind of thing you figure out, rather than something you're told.

  25. its not the corporations... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a Seattle-ite myself, the “homeless problem” here has little to do with Amazon. It is directly in the laps of a socialist City Council and liberal voters who roll out the red carpet with freebee’s for homeless, (like doctor staffed heroin shoot up sites with free needles) a hobbled police force that is not allowed to enforce laws, arrest drug deals, site or tow broken down vehicles, a “no chase, no confront” policy towards shoplifters, homeless encampments that allow drug use. And the list goes on and on. Meanwhile working citizens see taxes skyrocket for various “studies” and $12 million dollar per mile bike lanes

    1. Re:its not the corporations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting.

      If the city council is the problem then you could either organize a group of voters to change its composition, or you could move.
      Where are the cities that have these conservative policies but also giant tech corporations? Where can we point to where failing to provide social services to the homeless (largely at the expense of the rich) has resulted in a net positive outcome for the working class? It certainly seems to me that every city with a large tech sector has some significant liberal influence.

      There's also the possibility that people don't agree with you that this is the problem, and other cities using your proposed changes aren't faring any better. In that case maybe the issue is that you have an incomplete understanding of the implications of the policies you seem so keen to disparage.

    2. Re:its not the corporations... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC a city cant keep paying for ever more homeless policies.
      For that ever more tax would be collected by the city.
      People with wealth then have to move to better parts of the USA just to keep any profit. To have the ability to invest and grow their brands.

      AC re "incomplete understanding"
      People can see the results of such politics all over the USA Parked RV, tent cities, many different kinds of trash, drug use, changes to the way police have to work.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:its not the corporations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do not refer to yourself as a Seattleite any more. With your beliefs, you are *clearly* a transplant who came to the area for work, likely from a place with little character or authenticity. And that's fine, but don't lay claim to being a native. In fact, you'd be a perfect fit for Bellevue.

    4. Re:its not the corporations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dare you to find a single homeless person who wouldn't rather no be homeless

    5. Re:its not the corporations... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      As a Seattle-ite myself, the “homeless problem” here has little to do with Amazon. It is directly in the laps of a socialist City Council and liberal voters who roll out the red carpet with freebee’s for homeless, (like doctor staffed heroin shoot up sites with free needles) a hobbled police force that is not allowed to enforce laws, arrest drug deals, site or tow broken down vehicles, a “no chase, no confront” policy towards shoplifters, homeless encampments that allow drug use. And the list goes on and on. Meanwhile working citizens see taxes skyrocket for various “studies” and $12 million dollar per mile bike lanes

      Ya, bullshit. The vast majority of the homeless (85%) lived here in Seattle before the became homeless. Property values, and rents have pretty much been going up 10% per year for more than 20 years now. All the cheap housing is being torn down or remodeled to make way for more expensive housing. Property owners, forced by rising property values and taxes, have been doubling rent without warning so they can remodel and charge that doubled rent. If you don't have a sizable nest egg stored up, moving is rough not only because you have to move, but there are less places similarly priced to the pre-doubled rent to move to. It's happened to lots of my working friends. It happened to several couples I know multiple times in the same year since Seattle rentals has never liked leases. Some have had to move in with family or friends to keep from being homeless. Even then, the typical office job just isn't able to keep up with the rents, especially if they have families or other obligations. Many are leaving because of this and because Seattle isn't the same as it was (although I heard the same thing in 2000, and that was true both times). It doesn't take much to see that people without a nestegg or support network will end up homeless, job or not.

    6. Re:its not the corporations... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      I"ll show you an entire homeless encampment - Pierce County Sheriff's department cleared a homeless encampment of more than 100 people. of the 100 people only 1 (ONE) accepted any services or help.
      The fact that most people refuse to accept is that most of the homeless in seattle are drug users, mentally ill, have issues with authority and simply refuse to follow rules. There ALREADY exist plenty of programs to help the homeless. But these programs require you follow rules - ie: no drug use, back in the facility by 10pm, no violence, etc. These people simply refuse or are unable to follow rules - thus they choose to be homeless.

    7. Re:its not the corporations... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Just like the recently (last month) homeless camp that Pierce County sherrifs dept broke up - only 1 person wanted assistance.
      Secondly, California properties have seen a similar increase in prices, yet, homelessness has decreased.
      They;ve come here. cat's man, feed'em you get more.

    8. Re:its not the corporations... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      head in the clouds dude, sorry. Tell me that downtown Seattle is just as "fun" as it used to be in the '90's. Nope... not even close. Homeless getting raped, robbed and committing crimes on a daily basis. SPD won't touch 'em. The graffiti is everywhere - tents line i5 past Northgate. Piles of garbage stream down from their encampments to the highway, filled with excrement, needles, garbage, all sorts of unnamed filth - tell me this was here in the '90's and I'll call you a liar.

    9. Re:its not the corporations... by Ryn · · Score: 1

      I never understood this "I was here first, it's too expensive now, I'm gonna be homeless!" attitude. Get the f out and move to a cheaper place. Maybe I'm too white-collar and privileged about this but shouldn't one try to improve their situation instead of sliding further and further down the gutter? People who can't afford to rent so they end up living in their cars? How about you "drive your car out of state and go find some other place to settle down"? What's going to change if you keep living in a car? Are you magically going to get a raise at work that'll suddenly make everything OK? Sheesh.

    10. Re:its not the corporations... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      Those of you who believe that homeless is a result of rising rents are drinking the liberal cool aid. I have 3 kids in the Seattle area ages 19-26, none with college degrees, all working full time and all living in homes/apartments. Albeit, they have roommates, but they are not homeless
      Many, many programs exist to help the homeless BUT, let me repeat BUT – you have to follow the rules. No drugs, in/out by certain hours, actually WANT to work.. but unfortunately, the vast majority of homeless are drug addicts, mentally ill, unable to follow rules so in realty they prefer street life.

      Here’s a few articles from your regional Seattle news orgs:

      35 tons of garbage from 1 homeless camp
      90 sheriff service calls in 2017
      https://q13fox.com/2018/05/31/...
      after homeless camp cleanup – crime drops:
      http://komonews.com/news/local...
      Of the homeless camp residents ““They were offered services. We even offered them jobs with labor people for a few months,” – “all their offers were rejected, including money to help clean up their own mess.”
      https://q13fox.com/2018/06/01/...
      it's not corporations or housing prices, but choices.

    11. Re:its not the corporations... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      "white privilege" is BS. This is America, learn to speak proper English... you know, the type that goes into reports, documentation, proposals, etc.

    12. Re:its not the corporations... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      read it an weep:
      Of the homeless camp residents “They were offered services. We even offered them jobs with labor people for a few months,” – “all their offers were rejected, including money to help clean up their own mess.”
      https://q13fox.com/2018/06/01/...

  26. Keep up the good work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon is about one thing and that is to be the ONLY large scale retailer left standing in the Western World. They will drive every other operation to the wall AND what few employees they have left to the brink of collapse. Then they will be replaced by robots.
    Even the Robots will be repaired by other robots. No humans needed.

    They have got away with paying far less tax than they should have been for years and years.
    Stop Amazon before it is too late (probably is in many places)

  27. Re: Not bad by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

    Yea strange, acombany provides transit for their workorce , probably because the public transit is not good enugh, results, seats a freed up on publc transit, and the emploies thet would normaly drive in ther own cars adding even more traffic now ride rhe company bus whitch creates less traffic and is thus better for evryone using the road. Suddenly soneone starts using said buses for target practice?? I must be missing something, but what? This just seems silly to me

  28. America by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Why is anti-Starbucks graffiti necessary? As a non-American, I've always wondered why the coffee alone wouldn't be enough to keep the people away?

  29. Next Far Cry game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bezos would make a great villain. All those captured will be forced to smile with braces.

  30. Re: That can be said for all for-profit businesses by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Their whole point is to take as much money as possible,while giving back aslittle as possible.

    Right. Which is why Amazon has a gargantuan annual profit margin reaching almost 4%. While those kind, giving folks at apple take in a measly 30% profit.

  31. Why AMAZ is looking to move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's incredible about Seattle, is that AMAZ will move. To a culture and gov at the state and local level that actually wants them . And it will gut part of Seattle. Sure there's msft, and other tech, but...

    Good on AMAZ to see the (literal) writing on the wall, and start the steps to leave.

    I live in northern VA, and it sure seems the local sentiment is "roll out the red carpet"... Tho I haven't checked lately to see if NOVA is on the short list.

    I'm in tech, and visiting SFO has gone from a "what a nice town", to a "what a s*** hole" in the past decade. Guess Seattle sees sfo as their model.

  32. Carpetbaggers by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    ...corrupt. Seattle, San Francisco et. al. have growth to fund and Tech overlords, queen's coaches and company housing impacts leave cities devastated with congestion, homeless, infrastructure and skyrocketing costs in an escalating economy run by absentee feudal corporations

  33. Re: Because ... Addendum by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Sorry about the garbled quote, but that was a cut and paste form Wikipedia. The translation is reasonable. (I originally heard reported as said in the first person singular by Louis, and Wikipedia says "attributed to", so don't believe the attribution unreservedly.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  34. Re: Schenectady by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    General Electric used to have a big presence in Schenectady. Lots of buildings, lots of employees. Then trouble hit. So the town said - let's tax the crap out of GE. We'll tax their buildings - what you're effectively saying. Tax the business. The day that tax passed, GE raised all of their buildings in the town. The iconic GE logo that was really a work of art, everything. Gone. So Schenectady was screwed royally. Not only did they not get their taxes for their failed Democratic policies that don't work anywhere in the world, they lost all of the jobs that were in town.

    You can't just give money away. There is no money fairy. Like a cat that you give milk to, people will keep coming back for that handout. They will also take advantage of your good will. Eventually it leads to homelessness. I know them well. Washington DC homeless and suburban Maryland homeless through the church. Work with a church for a while with these people. Even if you are very understanding, very patient, very nice... you'll come home time from time just pissed. Really pissed at what people will put you through for NOTHING. They're too stupid to do the right thing, even if it is plain as day, in your face obvious.

  35. I never understood... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... why Bezos wanted to build out his growing empire in downtown Seattle.

    First, there's the expense of building in a costly city. Second, there's anti-capitalist sentiments of one of the most liberal cities in America. Third, there's the horrific traffic (even with as much as Amazon pays its employees, many can't afford to live in Seattle and have to commute). Lastly, there's the crowding and grunge. I had to drive into SLU during lunch hour the other day. I was immediately reminded of the Dave Mathews Band's song "Ants Marching." Plus, there's the homeless camps, and garbage, and filth, and stench.

    Expedia is doing the same thing. They're moving from a great location in Bellevue (I worked there for a while, years ago) to a crap location in Seattle that will have all the drawbacks of SLU -- possibly more because it's more isolated and harder to get to. Unless their employees can afford to live in Ballard, their commute is going to become hell on Earth.

    Compare that to more rural campuses (like Microsoft's, for instance) and I can't understand why anyone would actually wish for that. Is it part of the whole brogrammer mystique you all try so hard to cultivate? Is it meant to signal your cultural and intellectual superiority?

  36. Re: That can be said for all for-profit businesse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Percentages require context, is not the dame 1% from local marketing to 1% from global market.
    Also, Amazon is not a worldwide company yet, is still a nationwide octopus that's is evolving into a giant massive corporation with the power of a giant bank.

  37. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    google sure is getting (passive) aggressive