> The point is that they pay such low wages that their workers are still eligible for welfare when working there (despite being hugely profitable) I'm not cont

> The point is that they pay such low wages that their workers are still eligible for welfare when working there (despite being hugely profitable) I'm not contesting this. This is a valid point. > This essentially means that tax dollars are subsidizing their profits. I don't see how this would be the case. Two scenarios: 1: - Welfare is now $0/month - Some people that could get by with welfare now can't. They start looking for jobs. - Increase in the supply of workers. - Decrease in wages. (good for amazon) 2: - Welfare is now $3k/month - Some people decide that it's no longer worth it to work. They'd rather just live off of welfare. - Decrease in the supply of workers. - Increase in wages. (bad for amazon)