3 ms·
Comparing Google's workforce to Amazon's is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The labor required at each is completely different. Instead, compare Walmart to Co
by jadell 8y ago
Comparing Google's workforce to Amazon's is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The labor required at each is completely different.
Instead, compare Walmart to Costco: similar operations, same skills required of their workforce. Yet Walmart, which makes much more money than Costco, pays its employees wages that require many of them to rely on government assistance. And Costco provides not only living wages, it also provides benefits even to part-time employees. And it does it with much less money. Why should we be subsidizing Walmart's workforce, when we don't have to do the same for Costco's?
- maxerickson 8y agoThey are comparable at the level of "retail" and maybe even "big box retail", but that is about it. The 10 Walmarts within the same distance of me as the 1 CostCo sort of obviously aren't competing with CostCo. Still totally reasonable to look at what structural changes could be made to shift costs towards Walmart (away from taxpayers), but the comparison to CostCo isn't really instructive. And it could just be that Walmart shouldn't be able to run so many stores. But that's going to change the availability of good for many people.
- oconnor663 8y ago> Comparing Google's workforce to Amazon's is an apples-to-oranges comparison. I agree, and I think the original headline is making precisely that apples to oranges comparison. If you call out certain companies for paying low wages, there has to be some accounting for how much of that is because of the business they're in ("not their fault") vs how much is because of their CEO's bonus or whatever ("their fault").