Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the one-spray-mocking dept.

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Amazon has grown in the wake of its threats over a per head tax on employees, which the city council passed and then repealed shortly after.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.

92 of 181 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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}."

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  2. 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. 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 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 Alypius · · Score: 1

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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: 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.

  8. 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 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!

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

      You may be wondering about cows vs sows.

      GET OUT OF MY HEAD

  9. 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.)

  10. 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: 1

      Heavy metal costs more to ship

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

      The internet has spoken. Don't buy music!

    3. 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.

  11. 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 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.

  12. 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.)

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    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 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.

    4. 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!
    5. 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).

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

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

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

      --
      Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    9. 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.

      --
      Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    10. 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.

  13. 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.

      --
      Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    2. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Everyone else just "had" their land yea?

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

      --
      Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

      --
      Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    10. 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 ...

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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!!!
    15. 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!!!
    16. 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!!!
    17. 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,.

      --
      Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    18. Re:Because OF COURSE it is! by Mark4ST · · Score: 1

      Commiefornia,

      Has this account been seized by a Russian chatbot?

    19. 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!!!
    20. 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.
    21. 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?

    22. 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.

    23. 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!!!
    24. 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!!!
    25. 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.

    26. 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!!!
    27. 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.

    28. 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.

    29. 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!!!
    30. 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....

  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 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"
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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/...

  18. 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

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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.