It’s upbeat, it’s rational. It’s so good.
1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
It connects the dots through - Amazon seems to be claiming their drivers are exempt from something due to being contractors, and this bill will enforce those undefined somethings to be enforced.
> This bill would require operators of certain warehouses and storage facilities from which goods are delivered to final consumers in the City to obtain a business license from the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. This bill would set forth the conditions of such license, which would include safety, training and employment requirements. This bill would also set forth enforcement options, including those available to the City and to workers.
The bill text itself seems to be more about hiring / firing practices than trucks.
It’s an attempt to build political support for passing a specific piece of legislation. It’s not “vaguely defined”, it refers to a specific bill that he wants to pass that has legislative text available on the internet.
Or bribes.
You could say the same about Trump, and no, this is not supposed to be a compliment.
That's true, both Mamdani and Trump are very effective politicians. One can disagree with either or both of their positions, but that doesn't mean that they're not good at it.
As far as I can see from a literal 5 second google search:
- Liability for Injury at work is no longer on Amazon
- Liability for injuries caused by Amazon workers get shifted to the Worker, rather than Amazon (despite the fact that some of the conditions leading to that may come from Amazon themselves)
- It is harder to negotiate, as Amazon's official position is that "They do not work for us"
- It is easier to stop employment of sub-contractors.
The video already mentions this, but the idea of sub-contracting is that you are responsible for your own hours, routes, etc. This is clearly not the case for these workers.
Bottom line - just because Amazon doesn't directly have this liability - it doesn't mean nobody has this liability - the sub contractors do. And if they do, they need to pay for the insurance, and if they pay for the insurance, then Amazon has to pay them more to pay for this insurance.
So the real question is... what concrete harm/problem are we solving for that isn't already solved for today.
i suspect the problems are:
subcontractors are small businesses that don't have the resources to cover those liabilities or fight lawsuits from customers, nor do they have the resources to fight amazon to make it pay their share.
maybe getting insurance is not enforced, so those who don't pay for insurance are cheaper.
amazon uses their negotiation power to demand favorable conditions for themselves from subcontractors.
The government has its own laws on things like minimum workers compensation insurance.
So the subcontractors are insured.
But my question for you is: Why do you think Amazon do this if it's not to specifically side track the exact things that I listed? If they were just paying the sub-contractor directly for that insurance? What would be the point.
Amazon is subcontracting out delivery to smaller companies, for example ACME Logistics, LLC. Amazon tells ACME when things need to be delivered. ACME then hires delivery drivers, whether the individuals in vests are full-time/part-time/1099 independent is another thing. I doubt Amazon is hiring any 1099 workers directly, but I could be wrong.
There are insinuations here, and a good video, but it would be good to have actual examples and then an actual demonstration of a pattern of harm, before we introduce new rules that are likely going to make deliveries more expensive.
I understand that a YouTube video isn't a policy document... and I don't expect it to have all of these things. But as a citizen, I do expect - that somewhere - there should be an actual policy document that outlines the facts.
This act is basically saying "Nope, we are considering them Amazon employees, so we can sue or fine Amazon for their actions regardless of name on employees paycheck or car registered owner." Also, if they combined into single company, it makes union actions much easier.
This happens with FedEx/UPS as well.
You're describing the "what" - you're not describing the "why" is that an issue...
Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance? Do we think this insurance is not big enough? Should we make it bigger for all delivery companies or do we need to single out Amazon's liability insurance? Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?
I wouldn't say subcontracting is a bad thing always. It depends on reason for subcontracting and in this case, I'd call it bad since subcontracting is clearly to avoid liability for what is critical business function.
>Is "Joe's delivery company" not already required to have liability insurance?
Yes they are. It is enough? Not always. States are always trying to balance allowing protecting general public but not strangling small businesses. It doesn't always work out.
>Do we think that a delivery company delivering the same package for Amazon vs. FedEx vs. Mary's Flowers Inc. vs. NYC Movers Inc. should have a different amount of liability? (e.g., if that delivery driver injures a pedestrian, should we require that NYC Movers Inc. covers fewer costs than Amazon)?
This law would impact all those companies if they move their drivers into subcontractor. Amazon is getting called out because they are BIGGEST users of this system but no, they are not only ones.
They’ve problem is that most of these are not really small businesses, in the same way that most Uber drivers aren’t really a small business.
They don’t drive a generic truck, they drive an Amazon branded truck, often an Amazon financed truck, often a vehicle specific to Amazon deliveries.
Can they use the Amazon-truck they financed from Amazon for non-Amazon deliveries?
I don't know, can they not? If that is the case then it's definitely problematic.
My memory is the DSP itself is not required to be exclusive to Amazon, but an Amazon branded vehicle can’t be used for purposes other than Amazon deliveries.
1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
The hidden assumption is that there is some sort of responsibility that amazon ought to have, and that by shirking it, they're doing you harm. Instead of facts, they're listing things that give viewer a bad gut reaction like injury and accidents. The idea is already baked into the premise of the video, rather than propose a neutral question to the viewer; ala, at what level are a client responsible for the contractor's health and wellbeing. Why don't they ask this for tradies and plumbers?
I’m all about holding Amazon to the same standards, but what precisely does this accomplish? The subcontracting delivery companies already have to follow the same laws as every other company, don’t they?
The problem here is Amazon farms out delivery to these companies, set impossible delivery standards that require these subcontractor employees to do things that break the law OR cause damage to their health. However, since Amazon is technically not employing them, they have no liability.
Source? Is it actually physically "impossible", or simply a race to the bottom dynamic?
1 - https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7...
Also what are the harms that new rules introduce? Are you going to eliminate a bunch of new small businesses that do deliveries and replace them with everything being under one, giant, multi-trillion dollar company?
Why should the governor of South Dakota (pop 935,094) have more clout than the mayor of New York City (pop 8,804,190)?
By definition, the governor of NY is responsible for more people than the mayor of NYC, yet more people are familiar with the mayor and might not even be able to name the governor.
What happens next year?
Yes, delaying pension contributions was absolutely a fudge, but it’s not like that was 100% of the gap for going from a large deficit to a balanced budget.
I’m supposed to be afraid of socialists but not authoritarian technofeudalism paperclip maximizers? If both scenarios are “you’ll own nothing an be happy,” I’ll take the system where someone actually tries to make their constituents happy.
You can’t scare people who realize we’re already at rock bottom. People who are delusional and think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires and billionaires are always a lost cause, they are in a cult or belief system similar to a religion.
But why bother? Those candidates will only be successful if they're lucky.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
You may ask: "Why are these lottery tickets and wins important at this point on the timeline?" That is a very important question.
Democratic socialists top MAGA candidates among voters in CNBC’s All-America poll - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-ma... - July 17, 2026
> The results indicate that even with a number of self-described democratic socialists on the ballot, Democrats will have the upper hand heading into November’s midterm election, which is widely viewed as a referendum on Trump. It also suggests voters are warming to the idea of a more muscular federal government that provides additional services in exchange for higher taxes. The poll found that 32% of registered voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate if they describe themselves as a democratic socialist, while 50% would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. Twenty-nine percent of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate with Trump’s endorsement, while 52% would be less likely. A candidate who describes themself as a supporter of the MAGA movement does even worse, with only 27% of voters saying that would make them more likely to vote for them and 57% saying it would make their vote less likely. Capitalism remains more popular than socialism in the U.S., the poll found, but has declined in public sentiment in recent years as socialism has gained. Twenty-eight percent of registered voters polled viewed socialism positively, a leap up from 18% in 2024. Fifty percent of registered voters viewed capitalism positively, little changed from 51% in 2024. Forty-eight percent of voters viewed socialism negatively, while 27% viewed capitalism negatively in the poll released Friday. Voters aged 18-34 preferred socialism by a margin of 18% points, while older age demographics preferred capitalism. That could reshape the electorate in the future. Or today’s younger voters could evolve their preferences as they age.
> “If these current attitudes were to persist over time, and the 18-49 year-olds of today were going to keep those types of attitudes, we’re going to have a seismic shift in terms of the national conversation and economic policy prescriptions that we see coming out of Congress and different places over time,” said Micah Roberts, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the Republican pollster for the survey. “The attitudes of 18-34 year-olds today are the reality of our country in 20 years.” [My note: Draw your attention here, it is the most important fact when thinking in the context of this system.]
> Voters polled did not believe some form of socialism would be a good idea for the country, but by an extremely narrow margin. Forty-four percent of voters polled said some form of socialism would be a bad thing, while 40% said it would be a good thing — winnowing the gap by half from the last time it was polled. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 43% of adults viewed socialism as a good thing and 51% viewed it as a bad thing. [My note: extremely narrow margins on ideas can potentially be changed rapidly with some effort]
TLDR We are at a political tipping point due to demographics in the electorate, and if Democratic Socialists win and show they can deliver (as Mamdani is doing in NYC), it will lock in a positive uptake trajectory for them for at least 1-2 decades ahead. ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, and they are the ones with strong positive beliefs about capitalism (because they were lucky and had a positive experience within the golden age of US economics that will never repeat). 70+ age cohort owns 1/3rd of wealth. Progress occurs one funeral at a time (Max Planck). Young people may not be wealthy, and will likely never be wealthy, but they all get their vote.
https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-...
Measure impact, outcomes, and improvements in quality of life. Numbers in a database or spreadsheet are none of those.
To die with zero and an overflowing funeral attendance is success (great book on this topic literally called “Die with Zero” by Bill Perkins, I highly recommend [ISBN13 9780358567097]). If you don’t want to be hated as a very wealthy person, super simple, give most of it away (efficiently!) and make lives better. Keep enough to be cozy (nice crib, don’t have to work, fancy trimmings), but not enough to be a villain.
We may see wealth and the purpose of life differently, and disagreement during discourse is expected, but these are my thoughts and my mental model from ~half a century of existence and lived experience.
great comment. However, you could say that about alot of horrible people as well!
I live in a place where alot of those that claim the title 'Democratic Socialist' seem more drawn to 20th-century style identity politics rather than a philosophy of 'the world is complex and we need ethical and competent people to use the power of government to solve problems that markets don't solve', which is a way I might encapsulate my views.
Accepting the premise of my framing, how do you square the two?
If we presume that we will always exist in systems of people, and that there will always be potential bad actors seeking leverage and opportunity to grift through power, we need strong effort by the electorate to elect “good candidates” for lack of a better term. Sometimes we love the wrong people, sometimes we trust the wrong people. Our governance systems should be designed to accelerate good people, and impair bad people until they can be recalled or replaced through elections.
As always, think in systems. If our systems are suboptimal for the target outcome, we must decompose and understand the system, and improve the components that are leading to the suboptimal outcome. I would encourage you to run for office as well. The solution is straightforward: get good people who give a shit into positions of leverage and power, and get out of their way. "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." —- Plato
This matters if they do something and you go to sue them. All of sudden, you find out it's tiny company with only 1Million in assets and crappy insurance after they crash into a bus and cause brain damage. (https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15983591/teenager-lif...)
That sounds like an issue with the insurance regime rather than with amazon specifically. Targeting amazon might be politically expedient because of the current big tech backlash, but amazon delivery trucks aren't the only vehicles that can cause millions in damage.
They found a sort of loophole in the law. It's supposed to be self-regulating in a way, because being enormous means a lot of drivers and a lot of accidents so businesses get very picky about who is allowed to drive and how they drive. That falls apart when there's a bajillion drivers but they're made up of thousands of separate "delivery contractors" running fly-by-night businesses that the owners fully expect to die at some point and so don't leave any cash in and don't put improvements into.
E.g. I hear Walmart's trucking side is actually fairly nice and difficult to get into. They pay relatively well for the work and it's a cushier kind of trucking (more local, I think), which means everyone wants to work there and they have exacting standards for their drivers. They don't want insurance payouts.
Amazon seems notably different because it is _weirdly_ common to hear a story that goes something like "Amazon driver gets arrested for driving double the speed limit while high". The kind of thing that would trigger fleet-wide drug tests at most businesses, but is sort of a normal hum over at Amazon.
Also, I'm not talking about what the law says, I'm asking if it's ethical.
Because we should construct our laws to favor ethical outcomes.
I mean, what if the law said that no matter what, I dunno, Target was responsible for all damages in the state. You'd shrug your shoulders and say "Well, that's what the law says".
If you paid someone to drive you to the airport, and the guy runs over a kid, should you be responsible? For the purposes of this argument, let's ignore the role of ride hailing platforms. After all, if it weren't for them you could have conceivably arranged it over craigslist or whatever.
What if the DSP is a single-person company? Then the DSP and the driver are the same person. In that case, is it Amazon or the DSP requiring the driver to wear Amazon livery?
It also makes sense for Amazon to push hard into drone delivery for NYC as a response, which I also support.
my view is that the burden is on the people making up new rules to show their rules are solving concrete actual harms... not just hand wave and say "well obviously Amazon's a [evil scare tone] TRILLION DOLLAR COMPANY" and let that be the end of the argument
Burden of proof is on those who want to make new rules that compel others.
The subcontractors can just fold as well, leaving drivers in the lurch.
However, Amazon gets to dictate everything else about the job. The subcontractors have no authority or autonomy, but are made responsible for the heavier costs of the process.
Amazon wants to have an employer-relationship when it comes to dictating terms, but a contractor-relationship when it comes time to giving benefits or resolving disputes.