4 ms·
> You mean he could make less money by running his company inefficiently and that would be good for people? It would definitely be good for the warehouse worke
by pg314 8y ago
> You mean he could make less money by running his company inefficiently and that would be good for people?
It would definitely be good for the warehouse workers who are being exploited at the moment. Do you think efficiency goes above all else?
> Why single out Amazon workers and affiliates though?
Because Amazon warehouse workers are being exploited by Amazon?
> What if he gave cash to, I don't know, all optometrists, or something?
Why do you bring up this straw man? Is there any relation between optometrists and Amazon?
> Eventually, it's just giving away money to someone.
No it isn't. He has built his fortune on the hard work of his employees. He could at least address the problems with their working conditions.
- lopmotr 8y agoExploit is the wrong word. It's America and they're free to quit. Nothing's keeping there except their own desire for money. They won't starve without that job so it's not wage slavery. They simply choose to do it. And why affiliates? The GP proposed giving money to internet advertisers. They are surely not the most deserving group of people on Earth.
- oblio 8y ago> They won't starve without that job so it's not wage slavery. They simply choose to do it. Aren't those people paid close to minimum wage? People on minimum wage don't live in an utopia where they have all the freedom in the world to move around as they wish, unlike Silicon Valley employees being paid 200k per year.