4 ms·

The alternative is homelessness and hunger. This is not voluntary; it's coerced. And we know you know this.

by omginternets 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
This is obviously false. Amazon is not the only employer.
- omginternets 6y ago
  It seems like you're arguing that every Amazon employee could be absorbed by some other employer. If so, there is nothing obvious about this, and it would need to be shown.
  - zepto 6y ago
    You have just proved yourself wrong. Unless no employees can be absorbed by other employers, the alternative for an individual is not homelessness. Only when we get to a stage where there are no other jobs and no way to move to where there are other jobs, will you be correct. It is plainly obvious that we are not at that stage.
    - omginternets 6y ago
      That's simply untrue. If fewer than all employees can be absorbed, some are there by necessity, and are therefore coerced. Moreover, the ability to change jobs is not a pure function of jobs available. Other factors are at play, including: - can you survive during the transition? - do you the ability to even seek alternate employment? (Not easy if you're working 80h weeks) - are you financially capable of relocating? - would relocating force your partner to relinquish their job, and are they able to find another? The list goes on.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > If fewer than all employees can be absorbed, some are there by necessity, and are therefore coerced. Not one single employee is coerced. Any one of them can today choose a different employer. As already pointed out, your argument rests on the fictional situation where all of the employees leave simultaneously. Of course this is absurd, and obviously not reality. This has no bearing at all on any of the employees who are there right now. None of them as of this time are facing a situation where there are no other jobs. You can claim they are coerced when there really are no other jobs. Until then, you are wrong.
        AstralStorm 6y ago
        You can claim you're coerced without "no other jobs". Previous poster mentioned some real factors that can prevent you from taking "some other available job". Having no bearing? Show us how many workers are comfortable with even leaving Amazon's employ, or capable of that, then you have half a point. It is not even anywhere close to being a nice place to work, neither is many big convenience stores and other companies. Yet people stay there. Any rationale why is that since they "can just change jobs"? Amazon is big enough that it can afford to be way better.
        zepto 6y ago
        Your argument seems to be that people are coerced into working at all. Not that they are coerced into working for Amazon. If your position is that no job should be unpleasant, I can agree with you. Making unsupportable claims about people being ‘coerced’ into working for Amazon really has little do with this.

The alternative is homelessness and hunger. This is not voluntary; it's coerced. And we know you know this.

zepto 6y ago

This is obviously false. Amazon is not the only employer.

omginternets 6y ago
It seems like you're arguing that every Amazon employee could be absorbed by some other employer. If so, there is nothing obvious about this, and it would need to be shown.
- zepto 6y ago
  You have just proved yourself wrong. Unless no employees can be absorbed by other employers, the alternative for an individual is not homelessness. Only when we get to a stage where there are no other jobs and no way to move to where there are other jobs, will you be correct. It is plainly obvious that we are not at that stage.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    That's simply untrue. If fewer than all employees can be absorbed, some are there by necessity, and are therefore coerced. Moreover, the ability to change jobs is not a pure function of jobs available. Other factors are at play, including: - can you survive during the transition? - do you the ability to even seek alternate employment? (Not easy if you're working 80h weeks) - are you financially capable of relocating? - would relocating force your partner to relinquish their job, and are they able to find another? The list goes on.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > If fewer than all employees can be absorbed, some are there by necessity, and are therefore coerced. Not one single employee is coerced. Any one of them can today choose a different employer. As already pointed out, your argument rests on the fictional situation where all of the employees leave simultaneously. Of course this is absurd, and obviously not reality. This has no bearing at all on any of the employees who are there right now. None of them as of this time are facing a situation where there are no other jobs. You can claim they are coerced when there really are no other jobs. Until then, you are wrong.
      - AstralStorm 6y ago
        You can claim you're coerced without "no other jobs". Previous poster mentioned some real factors that can prevent you from taking "some other available job". Having no bearing? Show us how many workers are comfortable with even leaving Amazon's employ, or capable of that, then you have half a point. It is not even anywhere close to being a nice place to work, neither is many big convenience stores and other companies. Yet people stay there. Any rationale why is that since they "can just change jobs"? Amazon is big enough that it can afford to be way better.
        zepto 6y ago
        Your argument seems to be that people are coerced into working at all. Not that they are coerced into working for Amazon. If your position is that no job should be unpleasant, I can agree with you. Making unsupportable claims about people being ‘coerced’ into working for Amazon really has little do with this.