3 ms·
The rich do need to eat, but they can and generally do eat from places with much higher margins and higher-value brands. Those places have less incentive to cut
by wpietri 4y ago
The rich do need to eat, but they can and generally do eat from places with much higher margins and higher-value brands. Those places have less incentive to cut corners and more incentive to keep their customers healthy. The poorer you are, though, the more constrained your choices are and the more risk you may have to take. Food safety laws act as a quality floor (or a risk ceiling if you prefer), so they help poor people more than the rich.
- Xeoncross 4y agoWhile this is true, the OP's argument could also include other reasons they wanted this such as avoiding costly sickness in their employees. I can assure you that amazon and walmart care at least a little about the health of the minimum wage workers they depend on to move inventory.
- est31 4y agoAmazon is famous for not caring about the health of their workers, compared to competitors in the same industry. They pay above the market and replace the market's healthy workers with workers with health issues. They don't care to optimize their process towards worker health as currently the supply outstrips their demand. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/study-amazon-workers-suffer-serious-injuries-at-twice-rate-of-rivals.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/12/study-amazon-workers-suffer-... But I do agree with your general argument, a healthy workforce is better for a country's economy.