4 ms·

Median amazon warehouse employee pay is 24k a year. Amazon has around 300k warehouse employees. Jeff Bezos's wealth alone is equivalent to all 300k of them work

Median amazon warehouse employee pay is 24k a year. Amazon has around 300k warehouse employees. Jeff Bezos's wealth alone is equivalent to all 300k of them working 22 years at their current rate.

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
Why are warehouse workers entitled to anywhere near the share the creator and owner makes?
- specialp 8y ago
  I wasn't saying they were. This is far from anywhere near. Bezos was not able to make all his money due solely to his hard work, it was off the backs of others including all of us whom have to subsidize the workers that he is making 300k X their near lifetime earnings.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    The whole reason why warehouse workers are paid so little is because just about anyone can be trained to do it. It's simple economics. You are kind of right about subsidizing workers, but that's more of the government's fault for how our social services benefits work. It's not Amazon's fault the going rate for labor is below the rate that the government will provide benefits for.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Since when is "economical" equivalent to "good"? The whole reason children work in coal mines is that others can't fit down the holes, it's simple economics. The reason black slaves work the fields is because white folks don't want to do the work for the going rate, it's simple economics. Economic forces are not guaranteed to produce a just society.
      - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
        Did I say economical meant good? No, I said it's up to the government to change the requirements if it's decided that a certain pay is required to survive, and market forces won't lead to that amount. Your other two examples are quite the jump though, and not really worth commenting on.
        behringer 8y ago
        So are you saying social services benefits should be lower? I don't get your point.
        Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
        I could be wrong, but I think ApolloFortyNine was simply pointing out the way it is, not necessarily claiming that it's how it should be. Amazon paid so little because they could. Amazon just wants profit. If people want Amazon to pay more because their wage is not a living wage, they should take it up with the government to increase minimum wage.
        behringer 8y ago
        I see now what he meant thanks.
        specialp 8y ago
        I agree with this. Think about if we had no regulation or social support. Jeff Bezos is sitting there with 100s of thousands of times the wealth of his workers near starving. He would not be able to have that much wealth as there would be a revolt and he would be in danger. The fact that we subsidize the poor and keep order as a society is helping him to be able to live as an outrageously rich person in relative safety. So the inequity has to be brought down to a level where we don't have to subsidize the people making him outrageously wealthy while they have enough to get by.
- eximius 8y ago
  The natural counterpoint is, well, why aren't they? But that conversation is mostly opinions and hand waving on what is 'fair'. Assuming they aren't entitled to equal or near equal shares though, we can certainly ask how much is too unequal? A single man having more wealth than 300k people earning in nearly a lifetime seems like it is probably too much.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    I think that conversation is actually rather straight forward. You can replace warehouse workers with pretty much any able bodied person in America, and Amazon would operate exactly the same, with no loss in revenue. Who could you replace Jeff Bezos with? Do you think Amazon could just survive indefinitely without making any major changes and continue to be worth what they are? AWS alone proves to me he deserves as much as he gets. An eretailer also runs the largest (and pretty much first) cloud computing company in the world. I don't there's a lot of CEOs who would have chosen to branch out in that way, but it's extremely likely that AWS will end up surpassing Amazon itself. The warehouse workers had no impact on that decision, and that decision is a very, very large reason why they're worth as much as they are today.
- behringer 8y ago
  I think they're entitled to a basic livable wage so that the federal government doesn't have to give them food stamps and rent discounts. The government's benefits to amazon employees is more or less a government subsidy for Jeff Bezos.

Median amazon warehouse employee pay is 24k a year. Amazon has around 300k warehouse employees. Jeff Bezos's wealth alone is equivalent to all 300k of them working 22 years at their current rate.

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago

Why are warehouse workers entitled to anywhere near the share the creator and owner makes?

specialp 8y ago
I wasn't saying they were. This is far from anywhere near. Bezos was not able to make all his money due solely to his hard work, it was off the backs of others including all of us whom have to subsidize the workers that he is making 300k X their near lifetime earnings.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  The whole reason why warehouse workers are paid so little is because just about anyone can be trained to do it. It's simple economics. You are kind of right about subsidizing workers, but that's more of the government's fault for how our social services benefits work. It's not Amazon's fault the going rate for labor is below the rate that the government will provide benefits for.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Since when is "economical" equivalent to "good"? The whole reason children work in coal mines is that others can't fit down the holes, it's simple economics. The reason black slaves work the fields is because white folks don't want to do the work for the going rate, it's simple economics. Economic forces are not guaranteed to produce a just society.
    - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
      Did I say economical meant good? No, I said it's up to the government to change the requirements if it's decided that a certain pay is required to survive, and market forces won't lead to that amount. Your other two examples are quite the jump though, and not really worth commenting on.
      - behringer 8y ago
        So are you saying social services benefits should be lower? I don't get your point.
        Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
        I could be wrong, but I think ApolloFortyNine was simply pointing out the way it is, not necessarily claiming that it's how it should be. Amazon paid so little because they could. Amazon just wants profit. If people want Amazon to pay more because their wage is not a living wage, they should take it up with the government to increase minimum wage.
        behringer 8y ago
        I see now what he meant thanks.
      - specialp 8y ago
        I agree with this. Think about if we had no regulation or social support. Jeff Bezos is sitting there with 100s of thousands of times the wealth of his workers near starving. He would not be able to have that much wealth as there would be a revolt and he would be in danger. The fact that we subsidize the poor and keep order as a society is helping him to be able to live as an outrageously rich person in relative safety. So the inequity has to be brought down to a level where we don't have to subsidize the people making him outrageously wealthy while they have enough to get by.
eximius 8y ago
The natural counterpoint is, well, why aren't they? But that conversation is mostly opinions and hand waving on what is 'fair'. Assuming they aren't entitled to equal or near equal shares though, we can certainly ask how much is too unequal? A single man having more wealth than 300k people earning in nearly a lifetime seems like it is probably too much.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  I think that conversation is actually rather straight forward. You can replace warehouse workers with pretty much any able bodied person in America, and Amazon would operate exactly the same, with no loss in revenue. Who could you replace Jeff Bezos with? Do you think Amazon could just survive indefinitely without making any major changes and continue to be worth what they are? AWS alone proves to me he deserves as much as he gets. An eretailer also runs the largest (and pretty much first) cloud computing company in the world. I don't there's a lot of CEOs who would have chosen to branch out in that way, but it's extremely likely that AWS will end up surpassing Amazon itself. The warehouse workers had no impact on that decision, and that decision is a very, very large reason why they're worth as much as they are today.
behringer 8y ago
I think they're entitled to a basic livable wage so that the federal government doesn't have to give them food stamps and rent discounts. The government's benefits to amazon employees is more or less a government subsidy for Jeff Bezos.