> the definition of living wage is continually (and it seems to me, intentionally) slippery/non-specific That's a funny excuse not to engage with the point. Of

> the definition of living wage is continually (and it seems to me, intentionally) slippery/non-specific That's a funny excuse not to engage with the point. Of course it's variable: different regions have different costs of living, and different social supports. Some countries or areas do have a specifically defined value for a living wage, my own definition for the purpose of this discussion is quite obviously: "enough money to meet your basic needs". This is distinct from subsistence, which is what a lot of employees do. Plenty of people have defined and even calculated living wage, MIT even have a nice online one. Neither is necessary to engage with a discussion about the general idea of worker subsistence. > Amazon does not hurt customers overall. I suspect you either meant to say employees, or perhaps have introduced a new argument that I'm not following. You said "at the expense of customers", sorry the wording in my reply was slightly different. > A profitable company can afford to pay its employees for longer, but has no obligation (legally or ethically) to pay them more, IMO. As in this context we've defined more as barely enough to meet their basic needs, I'll have to disagree with you on the ethical obligation.