My use of the word "dysfunction" isn't about company output, but the cost of that output. Cost that includes human capital. I acknowledge that it's a lot more c

My use of the word "dysfunction" isn't about company output, but the cost of that output. Cost that includes human capital. I acknowledge that it's a lot more complicated than just simply "dysfunction". I'm not questioning whether or not Amazon is successful. That is clear. My own employer is also doing extremely well in the market. The internal "dysfunction" remains. To your point, if you define success by output, and ignore the human cost, many companies/industries are "successful". Maybe a word other than "dysfunction" is needed here, but my goal is to try to distinguish between "this business is successful" and "working there is a nightmare for xyz reasons". When cost is measured purely in terms of dollars, it's easier to evaluate the appropriateness of that cost. When cost is measured in people, it's a bit harder to evaluate what's acceptable/what's not. The Restaurant/Education job markets are fundamentally broken, but also very necessary, and by some measures, successful. But we can examine success/output separately from the underlying issues that are rampant.