2 ms·
One way to think of it is as Bezos being on welfare. Another way to think is that, presumably, the Amazon workers don't have better jobs available to them. If t
by ALittleLight 8y ago
One way to think of it is as Bezos being on welfare. Another way to think is that, presumably, the Amazon workers don't have better jobs available to them. If they weren't at Amazon then they'd be somewhere paying less, with less benefits, or unemployed. Without Amazon the workers would require more from the government. In this sense Amazon is subsidizing social welfare and not the other way around.
- prostoalex 8y agoThey briefly mention that in the article - Amazon might be the household name in e-commerce, but they're kinda small fry as far logistics and fulfillment industry goes, and apparently a higher-paying one at that: "That Amazon positions its own offerings as highly competitive can, perhaps, be seen as something of an indictment of larger issues with warehouse fulfillment. While the company is an easy target, it’s certainly not alone."
- gizmo686 8y agoAmazon is providing a service to the market. Without that, there would be an opening for someone else to provide that service; and that someone else might treat their workers better. What is worse is that, at a systemic level, we advantage companies that pay less, because it is cheaper to the company, making them more effective (even though they shift the cost to the tax payer). This seems like a clear signature of something where regulation is appropriate.