Amazombies living in the woods

[Andylusion]

Amazon will fix this, but not the way you think.

They'll simply reduce the number of seasonal workers. Amazon can't pay people tons of money to work short term seasonal work. No company can. The idea you are going to get a temporary job, that pays $20 an hour is crazy.

The UK has minimum wage laws, and Amazon is following the laws. They have done nothing wrong.

What you people fail to realize is that the whole reason for this is entirely different.

The UK has a massive housing crisis. It's been on-going for years now. The rent control laws in the UK, has prevented any investment into building new homes. No one is going to invest millions into making new apartments, when they can't charge enough money to make a profit.

So they simply don't make new apartments and homes.

Additionally, the UK has tons of 'green-space' laws, which prevent people from building new homes.

Lastly, the UK has had in the last few years, had a massive influx of immigrants. These migrants have no money to buy a home, and little money to rent a home, assuming they could even find a place to rent, which many can't.

The real reason that a massive 3 people.... just 3 people..... have been staying in tents, is because they simply can't find a place to live.

The government laws and regulations, have turned a shortage of housing, into a full blown country wide crisis.

This is the problem. Not Amazon. Of course the left-wing media, and pundits, are in full on 'attack amazon' mode. Because digging into the problem and learning the real reason, takes time and intelligence. Both of which the left-wing has a deficiency of.

No, the reason is in the article: Insufficient wage makes the traveling to expensive.

This is one of the differences between the right-wing, and the left-wing. You take the article at face value, assume it's divine truth, and question nothing.

Does the article prove that to be the case? Did they study the reasons behind it?

For example, one of the things I learned by reading various reports on the housing crisis, is that housing is often built far away from where people work. Making massive commutes a huge problem.

Second, they have massive government taxes on gasoline. Right now I pay $2 a gallon. In the UK, they pay $5.50 a gallon for gas, making is hideously expensive to commute.

The UK minimum wage, is about the same as here, but since they can't afford gas, it's harder to commute. But they have free health care.... while living in tents.

Additionally, they have massive mass transit system. Which is one of the reason the petrol tax is so high. But instead of making life better, it apparently it just makes people poor, and live in tents.

So again... if you want to just have a 5-year-old level understanding, and just blindly accept what people wrote in the article. Fine.

But the rest of us are looking at the policies and taxes that have caused the problems.

A key factor you have missed out is that benefits sanctions penalise people who do not take a job. This is intended to shift the lazy but a side effect is that people are often forced to take work that is totally unsuitable.
Obviously these people do not live locally and their accommodation issues will be compounded because they will be on a short term and zero hours contract on the minimum wage. They are literally between a rock and a hard place.
There has been a lot of attention on Amazon in the uk recently. Their tax affairs and employment practices have come under scrutiny and they are a deep cancer in our society.
I will not give them a penny of my money and a lot of people feel the same. Not enough though.

That factor really doesn't bother me as much, because you have to look at the counter factual....

If Amazon didn't exist, and there were no jobs at all.... are you telling me they and the country would be better off?

They are unemployed, and now have no jobs at all..... Would they be starving to death? Or would they be sitting on their butts watching TV, and having the tax paying working people pay for their food and housing?

How is this a win?

Some people want to look at issues like this from a Utopian perspective. If we make this new law that requires companies pay more, then everything will be wonderful and fantastic.

I look at it from a reality perspective.

Companies do not operate in places, unless they can operate profitably. It's a fact.

The primary reason why all the manufacturing jobs moved out of the US in decades past, is because due to regulations, Unions, laws, taxes, and so on, drove up the cost of doing business and forced jobs out of the country.

The whole reason manufacturing is coming back to the US, is because automation has allowed the replacement of jobs for machines, and reduced the cost of doing business.

This idea that somehow you can force companies to pay more, and still create jobs, is simply not true. ANd if you force up the cost of doing business in the UK, then you will not create high paying jobs for low-skill workers... you'll just not have any jobs.

So the question is, would your country really be better off if there were no jobs at all for low-skilled workers?

I think not.

The other problem is, I am always skeptical of these claims that such and such, large company pays nothing, and is exploitative.

The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart.

Here in Columbus Ohio, the wage for a Warehouse Worker, is $13/hour.

Now the company I work for right now, you earn $10. If you get hired on full time, you get $11.

I worked at another company where the warehouse staff was paid $9.50.

So why do you people, and all the media, not complain about the warehouses paying $9 to $10, but you scream and yell about Amazon paying $13? Why? Because Amazon is big. The other companies are relatively small in comparison.

Similarly, when you compare wages at Welmart to the other grocery stores, Walmart is far better. Starting wage for a Cashier is $9 to $10 an hour. You go to Meijer, or Giant Eagle, it's $8. You go to some of the smaller changes, they start you of at $7.25 until 7 months, and then you get $7.35, and a whooping 10¢ raise every 7 months.

Do you hear anyone screaming about those companies? Of course not. Because they are not massive like Walmart.

This is the irony of the left-wing. They attack the best options the poor have to gain employment, and promote the worst options.

All these smaller companies the left-wing praises. How many times have they attacked the mega-corps and promoted the small business?

But the mega-corps have the best wages and benefits to low-skill employees. Small companies often have the worst. I was interviewed for a job, where they had zero benefits. Not even 1 week paid vacation. And the wage was $9 to start. But no one screams about a small company with a dozen employees.

No, you want to scream about Amazon and Walmart where they offer 2 weeks paid vacation, and health care, and 401K, and company stock, and start you off at $13 an hour.

Now obviously, I know more about the US market, than the UK market, but I wager it's the same there.

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

 

[Phoenall]

Due to immigrants taking all the available housing pushing up prices for everyone else. Then the immigrants working outside the law driving down wages so that everyone suffers low wages

And who allowed them to come?

the EU who forced the UK to have open borders and take in all comers to relieve the pressure of France and Germany

You are joking. Your government alone is responsible. They are not friends of their own people.

The left wing neo marxist government maybe who were cowards and refused to stand up to the EU and tell them NO

Delusional. Which party stands against the exodus of the western world? I mean, which has actively opposed uncontrolled mass immigration of other countries´ lowest?

certainly not any left wing socialist one, that is for sure. The labour party welcomed the scum of islam and Europe with open arms and then wondered why things went wrong so shortly after

 

[Bleipriester]

And who allowed them to come?

the EU who forced the UK to have open borders and take in all comers to relieve the pressure of France and Germany

You are joking. Your government alone is responsible. They are not friends of their own people.

The left wing neo marxist government maybe who were cowards and refused to stand up to the EU and tell them NO

Delusional. Which party stands against the exodus of the western world? I mean, which has actively opposed uncontrolled mass immigration of other countries´ lowest?

certainly not any left wing socialist one, that is for sure. The labour party welcomed the scum of islam and Europe with open arms and then wondered why things went wrong so shortly after

And what do the Tories about that? Nothing! And they are governing. They ignore the Brexit referendum that they have launched and more "darkies" are arriving as we speak.

 

[Phoenall]

the EU who forced the UK to have open borders and take in all comers to relieve the pressure of France and Germany

You are joking. Your government alone is responsible. They are not friends of their own people.

The left wing neo marxist government maybe who were cowards and refused to stand up to the EU and tell them NO

Delusional. Which party stands against the exodus of the western world? I mean, which has actively opposed uncontrolled mass immigration of other countries´ lowest?

certainly not any left wing socialist one, that is for sure. The labour party welcomed the scum of islam and Europe with open arms and then wondered why things went wrong so shortly after

And what do the Tories about that? Nothing! And they are governing. They ignore the Brexit referendum that they have launched and more "darkies" are arriving as we speak.

BULLSHIT The referendum result has been slowed by the looney left wanting a re-run because they stand to lose too much. More European migrants arrive because we are still tied to the EU. When article 50 is implemented then you will see just how wrong you are

 

[Bleipriester]

You are joking. Your government alone is responsible. They are not friends of their own people.

The left wing neo marxist government maybe who were cowards and refused to stand up to the EU and tell them NO

Delusional. Which party stands against the exodus of the western world? I mean, which has actively opposed uncontrolled mass immigration of other countries´ lowest?

certainly not any left wing socialist one, that is for sure. The labour party welcomed the scum of islam and Europe with open arms and then wondered why things went wrong so shortly after

And what do the Tories about that? Nothing! And they are governing. They ignore the Brexit referendum that they have launched and more "darkies" are arriving as we speak.

BULLSHIT The referendum result has been slowed by the looney left wanting a re-run because they stand to lose too much. More European migrants arrive because we are still tied to the EU. When article 50 is implemented then you will see just how wrong you are

The EU asked the UK several times to file the exit application but they don´t lift a finger. A re-run has no legal basis. Your country is not full of European migrants, by the why, but they are from Africa and Asia. This has nothing to do with the EU.

 

[Phoenall]

The left wing neo marxist government maybe who were cowards and refused to stand up to the EU and tell them NO

Delusional. Which party stands against the exodus of the western world? I mean, which has actively opposed uncontrolled mass immigration of other countries´ lowest?

certainly not any left wing socialist one, that is for sure. The labour party welcomed the scum of islam and Europe with open arms and then wondered why things went wrong so shortly after

And what do the Tories about that? Nothing! And they are governing. They ignore the Brexit referendum that they have launched and more "darkies" are arriving as we speak.

BULLSHIT The referendum result has been slowed by the looney left wanting a re-run because they stand to lose too much. More European migrants arrive because we are still tied to the EU. When article 50 is implemented then you will see just how wrong you are

The EU asked the UK several times to file the exit application but they don´t lift a finger. A re-run has no legal basis. Your country is not full of European migrants, by the why, but they are from Africa and Asia. This has nothing to do with the EU.

No the EU demanded that the UK implement article 50 so they could hit them hard, and the UK refused. The P.M. has given the date for the implementation of article 50 and has told the world she wont do anything until we have a treaty in place to safeguard British interests, My country is full of Eastern European scum that are here to claim welfare and be given money and medicines to send back home, reported often enough in the press

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No, the reason is in the article: Insufficient wage makes the traveling to expensive.

This is one of the differences between the right-wing, and the left-wing. You take the article at face value, assume it's divine truth, and question nothing.

Does the article prove that to be the case? Did they study the reasons behind it?

For example, one of the things I learned by reading various reports on the housing crisis, is that housing is often built far away from where people work. Making massive commutes a huge problem.

Second, they have massive government taxes on gasoline. Right now I pay $2 a gallon. In the UK, they pay $5.50 a gallon for gas, making is hideously expensive to commute.

The UK minimum wage, is about the same as here, but since they can't afford gas, it's harder to commute. But they have free health care.... while living in tents.

Additionally, they have massive mass transit system. Which is one of the reason the petrol tax is so high. But instead of making life better, it apparently it just makes people poor, and live in tents.

So again... if you want to just have a 5-year-old level understanding, and just blindly accept what people wrote in the article. Fine.

But the rest of us are looking at the policies and taxes that have caused the problems.

A key factor you have missed out is that benefits sanctions penalise people who do not take a job. This is intended to shift the lazy but a side effect is that people are often forced to take work that is totally unsuitable.
Obviously these people do not live locally and their accommodation issues will be compounded because they will be on a short term and zero hours contract on the minimum wage. They are literally between a rock and a hard place.
There has been a lot of attention on Amazon in the uk recently. Their tax affairs and employment practices have come under scrutiny and they are a deep cancer in our society.
I will not give them a penny of my money and a lot of people feel the same. Not enough though.

That factor really doesn't bother me as much, because you have to look at the counter factual....

If Amazon didn't exist, and there were no jobs at all.... are you telling me they and the country would be better off?

They are unemployed, and now have no jobs at all..... Would they be starving to death? Or would they be sitting on their butts watching TV, and having the tax paying working people pay for their food and housing?

How is this a win?

Some people want to look at issues like this from a Utopian perspective. If we make this new law that requires companies pay more, then everything will be wonderful and fantastic.

I look at it from a reality perspective.

Companies do not operate in places, unless they can operate profitably. It's a fact.

The primary reason why all the manufacturing jobs moved out of the US in decades past, is because due to regulations, Unions, laws, taxes, and so on, drove up the cost of doing business and forced jobs out of the country.

The whole reason manufacturing is coming back to the US, is because automation has allowed the replacement of jobs for machines, and reduced the cost of doing business.

This idea that somehow you can force companies to pay more, and still create jobs, is simply not true. ANd if you force up the cost of doing business in the UK, then you will not create high paying jobs for low-skill workers... you'll just not have any jobs.

So the question is, would your country really be better off if there were no jobs at all for low-skilled workers?

I think not.

The other problem is, I am always skeptical of these claims that such and such, large company pays nothing, and is exploitative.

The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart.

Here in Columbus Ohio, the wage for a Warehouse Worker, is $13/hour.

Now the company I work for right now, you earn $10. If you get hired on full time, you get $11.

I worked at another company where the warehouse staff was paid $9.50.

So why do you people, and all the media, not complain about the warehouses paying $9 to $10, but you scream and yell about Amazon paying $13? Why? Because Amazon is big. The other companies are relatively small in comparison.

Similarly, when you compare wages at Welmart to the other grocery stores, Walmart is far better. Starting wage for a Cashier is $9 to $10 an hour. You go to Meijer, or Giant Eagle, it's $8. You go to some of the smaller changes, they start you of at $7.25 until 7 months, and then you get $7.35, and a whooping 10¢ raise every 7 months.

Do you hear anyone screaming about those companies? Of course not. Because they are not massive like Walmart.

This is the irony of the left-wing. They attack the best options the poor have to gain employment, and promote the worst options.

All these smaller companies the left-wing praises. How many times have they attacked the mega-corps and promoted the small business?

But the mega-corps have the best wages and benefits to low-skill employees. Small companies often have the worst. I was interviewed for a job, where they had zero benefits. Not even 1 week paid vacation. And the wage was $9 to start. But no one screams about a small company with a dozen employees.

No, you want to scream about Amazon and Walmart where they offer 2 weeks paid vacation, and health care, and 401K, and company stock, and start you off at $13 an hour.

Now obviously, I know more about the US market, than the UK market, but I wager it's the same there.

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

 

[Andylusion]

This is one of the differences between the right-wing, and the left-wing. You take the article at face value, assume it's divine truth, and question nothing.

Does the article prove that to be the case? Did they study the reasons behind it?

For example, one of the things I learned by reading various reports on the housing crisis, is that housing is often built far away from where people work. Making massive commutes a huge problem.

Second, they have massive government taxes on gasoline. Right now I pay $2 a gallon. In the UK, they pay $5.50 a gallon for gas, making is hideously expensive to commute.

The UK minimum wage, is about the same as here, but since they can't afford gas, it's harder to commute. But they have free health care.... while living in tents.

Additionally, they have massive mass transit system. Which is one of the reason the petrol tax is so high. But instead of making life better, it apparently it just makes people poor, and live in tents.

So again... if you want to just have a 5-year-old level understanding, and just blindly accept what people wrote in the article. Fine.

But the rest of us are looking at the policies and taxes that have caused the problems.

A key factor you have missed out is that benefits sanctions penalise people who do not take a job. This is intended to shift the lazy but a side effect is that people are often forced to take work that is totally unsuitable.
Obviously these people do not live locally and their accommodation issues will be compounded because they will be on a short term and zero hours contract on the minimum wage. They are literally between a rock and a hard place.
There has been a lot of attention on Amazon in the uk recently. Their tax affairs and employment practices have come under scrutiny and they are a deep cancer in our society.
I will not give them a penny of my money and a lot of people feel the same. Not enough though.

That factor really doesn't bother me as much, because you have to look at the counter factual....

If Amazon didn't exist, and there were no jobs at all.... are you telling me they and the country would be better off?

They are unemployed, and now have no jobs at all..... Would they be starving to death? Or would they be sitting on their butts watching TV, and having the tax paying working people pay for their food and housing?

How is this a win?

Some people want to look at issues like this from a Utopian perspective. If we make this new law that requires companies pay more, then everything will be wonderful and fantastic.

I look at it from a reality perspective.

Companies do not operate in places, unless they can operate profitably. It's a fact.

The primary reason why all the manufacturing jobs moved out of the US in decades past, is because due to regulations, Unions, laws, taxes, and so on, drove up the cost of doing business and forced jobs out of the country.

The whole reason manufacturing is coming back to the US, is because automation has allowed the replacement of jobs for machines, and reduced the cost of doing business.

This idea that somehow you can force companies to pay more, and still create jobs, is simply not true. ANd if you force up the cost of doing business in the UK, then you will not create high paying jobs for low-skill workers... you'll just not have any jobs.

So the question is, would your country really be better off if there were no jobs at all for low-skilled workers?

I think not.

The other problem is, I am always skeptical of these claims that such and such, large company pays nothing, and is exploitative.

The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart.

Here in Columbus Ohio, the wage for a Warehouse Worker, is $13/hour.

Now the company I work for right now, you earn $10. If you get hired on full time, you get $11.

I worked at another company where the warehouse staff was paid $9.50.

So why do you people, and all the media, not complain about the warehouses paying $9 to $10, but you scream and yell about Amazon paying $13? Why? Because Amazon is big. The other companies are relatively small in comparison.

Similarly, when you compare wages at Welmart to the other grocery stores, Walmart is far better. Starting wage for a Cashier is $9 to $10 an hour. You go to Meijer, or Giant Eagle, it's $8. You go to some of the smaller changes, they start you of at $7.25 until 7 months, and then you get $7.35, and a whooping 10¢ raise every 7 months.

Do you hear anyone screaming about those companies? Of course not. Because they are not massive like Walmart.

This is the irony of the left-wing. They attack the best options the poor have to gain employment, and promote the worst options.

All these smaller companies the left-wing praises. How many times have they attacked the mega-corps and promoted the small business?

But the mega-corps have the best wages and benefits to low-skill employees. Small companies often have the worst. I was interviewed for a job, where they had zero benefits. Not even 1 week paid vacation. And the wage was $9 to start. But no one screams about a small company with a dozen employees.

No, you want to scream about Amazon and Walmart where they offer 2 weeks paid vacation, and health care, and 401K, and company stock, and start you off at $13 an hour.

Now obviously, I know more about the US market, than the UK market, but I wager it's the same there.

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

 

[Phoenall]

A key factor you have missed out is that benefits sanctions penalise people who do not take a job. This is intended to shift the lazy but a side effect is that people are often forced to take work that is totally unsuitable.
Obviously these people do not live locally and their accommodation issues will be compounded because they will be on a short term and zero hours contract on the minimum wage. They are literally between a rock and a hard place.
There has been a lot of attention on Amazon in the uk recently. Their tax affairs and employment practices have come under scrutiny and they are a deep cancer in our society.
I will not give them a penny of my money and a lot of people feel the same. Not enough though.

That factor really doesn't bother me as much, because you have to look at the counter factual....

If Amazon didn't exist, and there were no jobs at all.... are you telling me they and the country would be better off?

They are unemployed, and now have no jobs at all..... Would they be starving to death? Or would they be sitting on their butts watching TV, and having the tax paying working people pay for their food and housing?

How is this a win?

Some people want to look at issues like this from a Utopian perspective. If we make this new law that requires companies pay more, then everything will be wonderful and fantastic.

I look at it from a reality perspective.

Companies do not operate in places, unless they can operate profitably. It's a fact.

The primary reason why all the manufacturing jobs moved out of the US in decades past, is because due to regulations, Unions, laws, taxes, and so on, drove up the cost of doing business and forced jobs out of the country.

The whole reason manufacturing is coming back to the US, is because automation has allowed the replacement of jobs for machines, and reduced the cost of doing business.

This idea that somehow you can force companies to pay more, and still create jobs, is simply not true. ANd if you force up the cost of doing business in the UK, then you will not create high paying jobs for low-skill workers... you'll just not have any jobs.

So the question is, would your country really be better off if there were no jobs at all for low-skilled workers?

I think not.

The other problem is, I am always skeptical of these claims that such and such, large company pays nothing, and is exploitative.

The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart.

Here in Columbus Ohio, the wage for a Warehouse Worker, is $13/hour.

Now the company I work for right now, you earn $10. If you get hired on full time, you get $11.

I worked at another company where the warehouse staff was paid $9.50.

So why do you people, and all the media, not complain about the warehouses paying $9 to $10, but you scream and yell about Amazon paying $13? Why? Because Amazon is big. The other companies are relatively small in comparison.

Similarly, when you compare wages at Welmart to the other grocery stores, Walmart is far better. Starting wage for a Cashier is $9 to $10 an hour. You go to Meijer, or Giant Eagle, it's $8. You go to some of the smaller changes, they start you of at $7.25 until 7 months, and then you get $7.35, and a whooping 10¢ raise every 7 months.

Do you hear anyone screaming about those companies? Of course not. Because they are not massive like Walmart.

This is the irony of the left-wing. They attack the best options the poor have to gain employment, and promote the worst options.

All these smaller companies the left-wing praises. How many times have they attacked the mega-corps and promoted the small business?

But the mega-corps have the best wages and benefits to low-skill employees. Small companies often have the worst. I was interviewed for a job, where they had zero benefits. Not even 1 week paid vacation. And the wage was $9 to start. But no one screams about a small company with a dozen employees.

No, you want to scream about Amazon and Walmart where they offer 2 weeks paid vacation, and health care, and 401K, and company stock, and start you off at $13 an hour.

Now obviously, I know more about the US market, than the UK market, but I wager it's the same there.

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

What he wants is a state owned shop that sells state made goods at a high price and pays its workers nothing while creaming it in. He thinks he will be one of the bosses and be able to afford his state made car that breaks down every 2 or 3 days and will be happy with that. Then look on in envy at the people over the border with free will and long lasting goods laughing at his stupidity

 

[Bleipriester]

Delusional. Which party stands against the exodus of the western world? I mean, which has actively opposed uncontrolled mass immigration of other countries´ lowest?

certainly not any left wing socialist one, that is for sure. The labour party welcomed the scum of islam and Europe with open arms and then wondered why things went wrong so shortly after

And what do the Tories about that? Nothing! And they are governing. They ignore the Brexit referendum that they have launched and more "darkies" are arriving as we speak.

BULLSHIT The referendum result has been slowed by the looney left wanting a re-run because they stand to lose too much. More European migrants arrive because we are still tied to the EU. When article 50 is implemented then you will see just how wrong you are

The EU asked the UK several times to file the exit application but they don´t lift a finger. A re-run has no legal basis. Your country is not full of European migrants, by the why, but they are from Africa and Asia. This has nothing to do with the EU.

No the EU demanded that the UK implement article 50 so they could hit them hard, and the UK refused. The P.M. has given the date for the implementation of article 50 and has told the world she wont do anything until we have a treaty in place to safeguard British interests, My country is full of Eastern European scum that are here to claim welfare and be given money and medicines to send back home, reported often enough in the press

Article 50 says how an exit has to be processed. That was clear even before the referendum was hold. They are not going to brexit, as far as I see.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

A key factor you have missed out is that benefits sanctions penalise people who do not take a job. This is intended to shift the lazy but a side effect is that people are often forced to take work that is totally unsuitable.
Obviously these people do not live locally and their accommodation issues will be compounded because they will be on a short term and zero hours contract on the minimum wage. They are literally between a rock and a hard place.
There has been a lot of attention on Amazon in the uk recently. Their tax affairs and employment practices have come under scrutiny and they are a deep cancer in our society.
I will not give them a penny of my money and a lot of people feel the same. Not enough though.

That factor really doesn't bother me as much, because you have to look at the counter factual....

If Amazon didn't exist, and there were no jobs at all.... are you telling me they and the country would be better off?

They are unemployed, and now have no jobs at all..... Would they be starving to death? Or would they be sitting on their butts watching TV, and having the tax paying working people pay for their food and housing?

How is this a win?

Some people want to look at issues like this from a Utopian perspective. If we make this new law that requires companies pay more, then everything will be wonderful and fantastic.

I look at it from a reality perspective.

Companies do not operate in places, unless they can operate profitably. It's a fact.

The primary reason why all the manufacturing jobs moved out of the US in decades past, is because due to regulations, Unions, laws, taxes, and so on, drove up the cost of doing business and forced jobs out of the country.

The whole reason manufacturing is coming back to the US, is because automation has allowed the replacement of jobs for machines, and reduced the cost of doing business.

This idea that somehow you can force companies to pay more, and still create jobs, is simply not true. ANd if you force up the cost of doing business in the UK, then you will not create high paying jobs for low-skill workers... you'll just not have any jobs.

So the question is, would your country really be better off if there were no jobs at all for low-skilled workers?

I think not.

The other problem is, I am always skeptical of these claims that such and such, large company pays nothing, and is exploitative.

The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart.

Here in Columbus Ohio, the wage for a Warehouse Worker, is $13/hour.

Now the company I work for right now, you earn $10. If you get hired on full time, you get $11.

I worked at another company where the warehouse staff was paid $9.50.

So why do you people, and all the media, not complain about the warehouses paying $9 to $10, but you scream and yell about Amazon paying $13? Why? Because Amazon is big. The other companies are relatively small in comparison.

Similarly, when you compare wages at Welmart to the other grocery stores, Walmart is far better. Starting wage for a Cashier is $9 to $10 an hour. You go to Meijer, or Giant Eagle, it's $8. You go to some of the smaller changes, they start you of at $7.25 until 7 months, and then you get $7.35, and a whooping 10¢ raise every 7 months.

Do you hear anyone screaming about those companies? Of course not. Because they are not massive like Walmart.

This is the irony of the left-wing. They attack the best options the poor have to gain employment, and promote the worst options.

All these smaller companies the left-wing praises. How many times have they attacked the mega-corps and promoted the small business?

But the mega-corps have the best wages and benefits to low-skill employees. Small companies often have the worst. I was interviewed for a job, where they had zero benefits. Not even 1 week paid vacation. And the wage was $9 to start. But no one screams about a small company with a dozen employees.

No, you want to scream about Amazon and Walmart where they offer 2 weeks paid vacation, and health care, and 401K, and company stock, and start you off at $13 an hour.

Now obviously, I know more about the US market, than the UK market, but I wager it's the same there.

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

You are projecting. Amazon are able to undercut legit businesses because they pay no taxes and abuse their staff. Explain how that is good for anybody apart from Bezos and of course yourself.

 

[Phoenall]

certainly not any left wing socialist one, that is for sure. The labour party welcomed the scum of islam and Europe with open arms and then wondered why things went wrong so shortly after

And what do the Tories about that? Nothing! And they are governing. They ignore the Brexit referendum that they have launched and more "darkies" are arriving as we speak.

BULLSHIT The referendum result has been slowed by the looney left wanting a re-run because they stand to lose too much. More European migrants arrive because we are still tied to the EU. When article 50 is implemented then you will see just how wrong you are

The EU asked the UK several times to file the exit application but they don´t lift a finger. A re-run has no legal basis. Your country is not full of European migrants, by the why, but they are from Africa and Asia. This has nothing to do with the EU.

No the EU demanded that the UK implement article 50 so they could hit them hard, and the UK refused. The P.M. has given the date for the implementation of article 50 and has told the world she wont do anything until we have a treaty in place to safeguard British interests, My country is full of Eastern European scum that are here to claim welfare and be given money and medicines to send back home, reported often enough in the press

Article 50 says how an exit has to be processed. That was clear even before the referendum was hold. They are not going to brexit, as far as I see.

And what does article 50 say exactly ?



Article 50

• 
• 

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

 

[Phoenall]

That factor really doesn't bother me as much, because you have to look at the counter factual....

If Amazon didn't exist, and there were no jobs at all.... are you telling me they and the country would be better off?

They are unemployed, and now have no jobs at all..... Would they be starving to death? Or would they be sitting on their butts watching TV, and having the tax paying working people pay for their food and housing?

How is this a win?

Some people want to look at issues like this from a Utopian perspective. If we make this new law that requires companies pay more, then everything will be wonderful and fantastic.

I look at it from a reality perspective.

Companies do not operate in places, unless they can operate profitably. It's a fact.

The primary reason why all the manufacturing jobs moved out of the US in decades past, is because due to regulations, Unions, laws, taxes, and so on, drove up the cost of doing business and forced jobs out of the country.

The whole reason manufacturing is coming back to the US, is because automation has allowed the replacement of jobs for machines, and reduced the cost of doing business.

This idea that somehow you can force companies to pay more, and still create jobs, is simply not true. ANd if you force up the cost of doing business in the UK, then you will not create high paying jobs for low-skill workers... you'll just not have any jobs.

So the question is, would your country really be better off if there were no jobs at all for low-skilled workers?

I think not.

The other problem is, I am always skeptical of these claims that such and such, large company pays nothing, and is exploitative.

The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart.

Here in Columbus Ohio, the wage for a Warehouse Worker, is $13/hour.

Now the company I work for right now, you earn $10. If you get hired on full time, you get $11.

I worked at another company where the warehouse staff was paid $9.50.

So why do you people, and all the media, not complain about the warehouses paying $9 to $10, but you scream and yell about Amazon paying $13? Why? Because Amazon is big. The other companies are relatively small in comparison.

Similarly, when you compare wages at Welmart to the other grocery stores, Walmart is far better. Starting wage for a Cashier is $9 to $10 an hour. You go to Meijer, or Giant Eagle, it's $8. You go to some of the smaller changes, they start you of at $7.25 until 7 months, and then you get $7.35, and a whooping 10¢ raise every 7 months.

Do you hear anyone screaming about those companies? Of course not. Because they are not massive like Walmart.

This is the irony of the left-wing. They attack the best options the poor have to gain employment, and promote the worst options.

All these smaller companies the left-wing praises. How many times have they attacked the mega-corps and promoted the small business?

But the mega-corps have the best wages and benefits to low-skill employees. Small companies often have the worst. I was interviewed for a job, where they had zero benefits. Not even 1 week paid vacation. And the wage was $9 to start. But no one screams about a small company with a dozen employees.

No, you want to scream about Amazon and Walmart where they offer 2 weeks paid vacation, and health care, and 401K, and company stock, and start you off at $13 an hour.

Now obviously, I know more about the US market, than the UK market, but I wager it's the same there.

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

You are projecting. Amazon are able to undercut legit businesses because they pay no taxes and abuse their staff. Explain how that is good for anybody apart from Bezos and of course yourself.

They only do this because your preferred political party altered the laws to suit to win a few more votes. Now you are complaining about those laws, you could not make it up

 

[Bleipriester]

And what do the Tories about that? Nothing! And they are governing. They ignore the Brexit referendum that they have launched and more "darkies" are arriving as we speak.

BULLSHIT The referendum result has been slowed by the looney left wanting a re-run because they stand to lose too much. More European migrants arrive because we are still tied to the EU. When article 50 is implemented then you will see just how wrong you are

The EU asked the UK several times to file the exit application but they don´t lift a finger. A re-run has no legal basis. Your country is not full of European migrants, by the why, but they are from Africa and Asia. This has nothing to do with the EU.

No the EU demanded that the UK implement article 50 so they could hit them hard, and the UK refused. The P.M. has given the date for the implementation of article 50 and has told the world she wont do anything until we have a treaty in place to safeguard British interests, My country is full of Eastern European scum that are here to claim welfare and be given money and medicines to send back home, reported often enough in the press

Article 50 says how an exit has to be processed. That was clear even before the referendum was hold. They are not going to brexit, as far as I see.

And what does article 50 say exactly ?



Article 50

• 
• 

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

 

[Phoenall]

BULLSHIT The referendum result has been slowed by the looney left wanting a re-run because they stand to lose too much. More European migrants arrive because we are still tied to the EU. When article 50 is implemented then you will see just how wrong you are

The EU asked the UK several times to file the exit application but they don´t lift a finger. A re-run has no legal basis. Your country is not full of European migrants, by the why, but they are from Africa and Asia. This has nothing to do with the EU.

No the EU demanded that the UK implement article 50 so they could hit them hard, and the UK refused. The P.M. has given the date for the implementation of article 50 and has told the world she wont do anything until we have a treaty in place to safeguard British interests, My country is full of Eastern European scum that are here to claim welfare and be given money and medicines to send back home, reported often enough in the press

Article 50 says how an exit has to be processed. That was clear even before the referendum was hold. They are not going to brexit, as far as I see.

And what does article 50 say exactly ?



Article 50

• 
• 

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

 

[Bleipriester]

The EU asked the UK several times to file the exit application but they don´t lift a finger. A re-run has no legal basis. Your country is not full of European migrants, by the why, but they are from Africa and Asia. This has nothing to do with the EU.

No the EU demanded that the UK implement article 50 so they could hit them hard, and the UK refused. The P.M. has given the date for the implementation of article 50 and has told the world she wont do anything until we have a treaty in place to safeguard British interests, My country is full of Eastern European scum that are here to claim welfare and be given money and medicines to send back home, reported often enough in the press

Article 50 says how an exit has to be processed. That was clear even before the referendum was hold. They are not going to brexit, as far as I see.

And what does article 50 say exactly ?



Article 50

• 
• 

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

You are projecting. Amazon are able to undercut legit businesses because they pay no taxes and abuse their staff. Explain how that is good for anybody apart from Bezos and of course yourself.

They only do this because your preferred political party altered the laws to suit to win a few more votes. Now you are complaining about those laws, you could not make it up

Hmmm. Wanking off again. Which party is my preferred party ?

 

[Andylusion]

That factor really doesn't bother me as much, because you have to look at the counter factual....

If Amazon didn't exist, and there were no jobs at all.... are you telling me they and the country would be better off?

They are unemployed, and now have no jobs at all..... Would they be starving to death? Or would they be sitting on their butts watching TV, and having the tax paying working people pay for their food and housing?

How is this a win?

Some people want to look at issues like this from a Utopian perspective. If we make this new law that requires companies pay more, then everything will be wonderful and fantastic.

I look at it from a reality perspective.

Companies do not operate in places, unless they can operate profitably. It's a fact.

The primary reason why all the manufacturing jobs moved out of the US in decades past, is because due to regulations, Unions, laws, taxes, and so on, drove up the cost of doing business and forced jobs out of the country.

The whole reason manufacturing is coming back to the US, is because automation has allowed the replacement of jobs for machines, and reduced the cost of doing business.

This idea that somehow you can force companies to pay more, and still create jobs, is simply not true. ANd if you force up the cost of doing business in the UK, then you will not create high paying jobs for low-skill workers... you'll just not have any jobs.

So the question is, would your country really be better off if there were no jobs at all for low-skilled workers?

I think not.

The other problem is, I am always skeptical of these claims that such and such, large company pays nothing, and is exploitative.

The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart.

Here in Columbus Ohio, the wage for a Warehouse Worker, is $13/hour.

Now the company I work for right now, you earn $10. If you get hired on full time, you get $11.

I worked at another company where the warehouse staff was paid $9.50.

So why do you people, and all the media, not complain about the warehouses paying $9 to $10, but you scream and yell about Amazon paying $13? Why? Because Amazon is big. The other companies are relatively small in comparison.

Similarly, when you compare wages at Welmart to the other grocery stores, Walmart is far better. Starting wage for a Cashier is $9 to $10 an hour. You go to Meijer, or Giant Eagle, it's $8. You go to some of the smaller changes, they start you of at $7.25 until 7 months, and then you get $7.35, and a whooping 10¢ raise every 7 months.

Do you hear anyone screaming about those companies? Of course not. Because they are not massive like Walmart.

This is the irony of the left-wing. They attack the best options the poor have to gain employment, and promote the worst options.

All these smaller companies the left-wing praises. How many times have they attacked the mega-corps and promoted the small business?

But the mega-corps have the best wages and benefits to low-skill employees. Small companies often have the worst. I was interviewed for a job, where they had zero benefits. Not even 1 week paid vacation. And the wage was $9 to start. But no one screams about a small company with a dozen employees.

No, you want to scream about Amazon and Walmart where they offer 2 weeks paid vacation, and health care, and 401K, and company stock, and start you off at $13 an hour.

Now obviously, I know more about the US market, than the UK market, but I wager it's the same there.

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

You are projecting. Amazon are able to undercut legit businesses because they pay no taxes and abuse their staff. Explain how that is good for anybody apart from Bezos and of course yourself.

You claim they pay no tax. Do you really believe that Amazon pays no tax? Do you want me to look up Amazons investor relation files, and see if they pay no tax?

Because every single time I like at a company people claim pays no tax, I find they paid tons of taxes.

Let's look.....


Amazon - Investor Relations - Annual Reports, Proxies and Shareholder Letters
2015 Annual Report
Page 63....

"In 2015, 2014, and 2013, we recorded net tax provisions of $950 million, $167 million, and $161 million."

In 2015, they paid $215 in US Federal Tax, $237 in State Tax, and $417 million in international taxes.

They pay no taxes huh?
That's "no tax" in your book?

Now, it's true that Amazon paid very little in UK taxes, I would agree. But did you ever think to ask 'why' instead of just saying "internet giants who dodge taxes"?

Why not actually take a minute to really learn why?

Page 25 of the report.

See it? Amazon lost money in 2014 corporate wide. But specifically their international unit lost money in both 2014 and 2015.

Tell me sparky.... how much tax do you pay when you lose money? You complain they didn't pay taxes, when they had no profit? Can we apply that logic to individuals, and complain poor people who don't make an income, don't pay enough tax?

But let's not stop learning. Why did they record a loss? Quoted from the same page:

The decrease in International segment operating income (loss) in absolute dollars in 2014, compared to the comparable prior year period, is primarily due to increased levels of operating expenses to expand our fulfillment capacity and spending on technology infrastructure and marketing efforts, partially offset by increased unit sales, including sales by marketplace sellers.​

Let me boil that down. The reason they recorded a net operating loss, which resulted in them paying very little in UK taxes is simply because.....

THEY INVESTED HUNDREDS OF MILLION INTO YOUR COUNTRY

There you go. No "dodging taxes" as you claim. No evil company screwing over your country. They invested millions of dollars into the UK, and that's why they offset their profits with those expenses, resulting in lower taxes.

Your lesson is done. You are dismissed.

(I'm just being cheeky, but honestly, next time, instead of being an easily manipulable dullard, try finding out the reasons why first, before spewing your judgemental criticism)

 

[Phoenall]

No the EU demanded that the UK implement article 50 so they could hit them hard, and the UK refused. The P.M. has given the date for the implementation of article 50 and has told the world she wont do anything until we have a treaty in place to safeguard British interests, My country is full of Eastern European scum that are here to claim welfare and be given money and medicines to send back home, reported often enough in the press

Article 50 says how an exit has to be processed. That was clear even before the referendum was hold. They are not going to brexit, as far as I see.

And what does article 50 say exactly ?








Article 50

• 
• 

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

 

[Phoenall]

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

You are projecting. Amazon are able to undercut legit businesses because they pay no taxes and abuse their staff. Explain how that is good for anybody apart from Bezos and of course yourself.

They only do this because your preferred political party altered the laws to suit to win a few more votes. Now you are complaining about those laws, you could not make it up

Hmmm. Wanking off again. Which party is my preferred party ?

I leave that to impotent welsh tarts to do.

Any that is neo marxist in principle, and anti English of course