6 ms·

This means a very sizable percentage of Amazon's workforce (though not quite half) could qualify for SNAP. "130% of the poverty line for a three-person family

This means a very sizable percentage of Amazon's workforce (though not quite half) could qualify for SNAP. "130% of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,213 a month, or about $26,600 a year." https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...

jonknee 9y ago
Assuming these minimum wage workers are the only source of income for a family of three.
epicureanideal 9y ago
You're assuming 2 kids and 1 income earner, though. It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a society where it's possible for the people currently working for $26k/yr to have a stable roadmap to much higher earnings. But I don't think Amazon alone is to blame for the problem.
- elicash 9y ago
  I'm not assuming everyone with that salary qualifies. I think we just have different definitions of "sizable." I think given these numbers it's highly likely to be sizable percentage of salaries, essentially, that we're subsidizing for Amazon because of their refusal to pay living wages. What's sizable? 5%? 10%? 30%? Hard to say, and I don't exactly expect Amazon to come forward with these numbers. Edit: Here's an article claiming it's more than 10% in Ohio that are on SNAP: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-employees-food-stamps-poverty-snap.html https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-e...
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Are we subsidizing Amazon, or are we subsidizing irresponsible reproduction? Maybe both?
- SolarNet 9y ago
  Except raising the minimum wage is often met with cries that it will stifle business and prevent competition. The problem is fundamentally that labor markets can't be free markets, and the minimum wage is not a viable way to control the market distortions. The better solution is to use a basic income which allows people to not work for companies like Amazon until they can pay a better wage.
  - vorpalhex 9y ago
    A minimum wage of $7/hr in the Bay Area or NYC is useless. That won't cover transportation. $14/hr is still, basically, the same amount of more or less useless. In, to quote Ken White, "pluck-my-banjo" Texas, that's a perfectly fine and livable sum. A dollar or two raise and you can probably start saving up for a house realistically. $14/hr is kingly. Amazon warehouses are usually not in banjo-playing rural areas, but rather as close to major towns as is economically feasible for Amazon's rent bill. This is neither a basic income nor a federal minimum wage problem. This is a lack of competing opportunities for minimally skilled workers problem. If these same workers had realistic job opportunities that paid well, then Amazon would have to raise wages (and pass some of that onto the consumers, but, that's relatively nothing).
    - gowld 9y ago
      There's a large tier between banjo-playing Texas and "Bay Area" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfillment_and_warehousing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfi...
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Can we please end this charade of pretending a $14 wage is kingly anywhere? I mean even the whole idea of 'banjo-playing areas'? Come on. I find it really gross the way people that have good jobs and have never left urban/suburban environments typecast the rest of the country.
      - sol_remmy 9y ago
aje403 9y ago
That's true, but it's also important to note that non-US residents do not qualify for SNAP
mchannon 9y ago
Wouldn't jump to that conclusion, given that this number is a median, not a mean. The minimum full-time salary could also be $28,446 and yield the same median number, depending on how Amazon pays their bottom rung.

jonknee 9y ago

Assuming these minimum wage workers are the only source of income for a family of three.

epicureanideal 9y ago

You're assuming 2 kids and 1 income earner, though. It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a society where it's possible for the people currently working for $26k/yr to have a stable roadmap to much higher earnings. But I don't think Amazon alone is to blame for the problem.

elicash 9y ago
I'm not assuming everyone with that salary qualifies. I think we just have different definitions of "sizable." I think given these numbers it's highly likely to be sizable percentage of salaries, essentially, that we're subsidizing for Amazon because of their refusal to pay living wages. What's sizable? 5%? 10%? 30%? Hard to say, and I don't exactly expect Amazon to come forward with these numbers. Edit: Here's an article claiming it's more than 10% in Ohio that are on SNAP: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-employees-food-stamps-poverty-snap.html https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-e...
- jrs95 9y ago
  Are we subsidizing Amazon, or are we subsidizing irresponsible reproduction? Maybe both?
SolarNet 9y ago
Except raising the minimum wage is often met with cries that it will stifle business and prevent competition. The problem is fundamentally that labor markets can't be free markets, and the minimum wage is not a viable way to control the market distortions. The better solution is to use a basic income which allows people to not work for companies like Amazon until they can pay a better wage.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  A minimum wage of $7/hr in the Bay Area or NYC is useless. That won't cover transportation. $14/hr is still, basically, the same amount of more or less useless. In, to quote Ken White, "pluck-my-banjo" Texas, that's a perfectly fine and livable sum. A dollar or two raise and you can probably start saving up for a house realistically. $14/hr is kingly. Amazon warehouses are usually not in banjo-playing rural areas, but rather as close to major towns as is economically feasible for Amazon's rent bill. This is neither a basic income nor a federal minimum wage problem. This is a lack of competing opportunities for minimally skilled workers problem. If these same workers had realistic job opportunities that paid well, then Amazon would have to raise wages (and pass some of that onto the consumers, but, that's relatively nothing).
  - gowld 9y ago
    There's a large tier between banjo-playing Texas and "Bay Area" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfillment_and_warehousing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfi...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Can we please end this charade of pretending a $14 wage is kingly anywhere? I mean even the whole idea of 'banjo-playing areas'? Come on. I find it really gross the way people that have good jobs and have never left urban/suburban environments typecast the rest of the country.
    - sol_remmy 9y ago

aje403 9y ago

That's true, but it's also important to note that non-US residents do not qualify for SNAP

mchannon 9y ago

Wouldn't jump to that conclusion, given that this number is a median, not a mean. The minimum full-time salary could also be $28,446 and yield the same median number, depending on how Amazon pays their bottom rung.