A good rule of thumb...if the billionaires are against it then the people should automatically be for it.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
283 points (99.6% liked)
politics
30777 readers
2696 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
They have the money to spend on advertising/hiring chuds to defend them. But they don't have the money to do it correctly.
Means they think it'll cost more than they're spending to prevent it.
One interesting and fucked up related fact is that when Amazon expands its delivery network it has a bunch of last-mile delivery services spin up to their specifications, promising them business. Then, after it analyzes its output and determines how much excess delivery bandwidth it has, it just leaves whatever last mile delivery businesses it doesn't need holding the bag (and a bunch of Amazon branded delivery trucks, because of course Amazon doesn't front the cost for that necessary investment).
Which is why you see rental trucks delivering Amazon in my city.
My last Amazon package came from some random guy in his own car.
Love this move. I've been dying to see some action taken on Amazon.
Okay. The bill is an interesting one. It does have the side effect that it will significantly damage independent courier services. Which, New York City being New York City and all, they've got a lot of two or three employee ran courier services.
I get what the ultimate goal here is. Amazon would then have to pay particular wages, insurance, 401(k) options, etc. That's a great goal. But Amazon contracts a lot in NYC. Which means the courier business in NYC isn't owned completely by a single entity, now the primary customer of that industry is one really big company, but Amazon doesn't own any of those couriers.
What this will do, is force Amazon to buy all of them out. Hire the employees and give benefits. But it will also mean that Amazon owns most of the NYC courier service in the city at that point. Now obviously, it's better for Amazon if they don't have to have employees and just subcontract, but push come to shove, if they have to by law take stake, they're going to want to own all of it. And when Mamdani is gone, they'll have a unique position to convince a Mayor from the other side to pull the ladder up.
Now all of this is just me thinking out loud. Don't take any of this with any significant grain of salt. I get what the goal is here, I'm cool with that. But forcing Amazon into the courier service in NYC and take ownership, I can't imagine them wanting to play fair once they get in. And this honestly relies on a lot of the "new invented" local union that this would create to mitigate a lot of issues.
I get the goal, I'm just thinking concentrating Amazon into pure entity that dominates entirely a local industry is asking for trouble. Maybe I'm being cynical.
Couldn't they also just make sure the contractors are actual contractors? They shouldn't care what vehicle you drive, how many people it takes, what kind of clothes you wear, or exactly what time it gets done. Just deliver X number of packages in Y number of hours for Z dollars.
"That tension is real, and the transition has to be handled with care rather than triumphalism." This is very AI imo, but that's the only part that stood out to me as slop