4 ms·
I was careful to say, "assuming they're a US company," because I was trying to point out that, yes, employment law exists for a reason, but Amazon's competitors
by dionidium 13y ago
I was careful to say, "assuming they're a US company," because I was trying to point out that, yes, employment law exists for a reason, but Amazon's competitors operate under the same employment laws as Amazon. In fact, I said this explicitly.
Edit: Maybe you're trying to say that Amazon's competitors pay their employees more than Amazon because they have bigger hearts and are willing to crash their businesses before paying (legal, but unfair) low wages. That's a pretty big claim that requires some evidence. I think it's more likely that they are losing for other reasons.
- jbooth 13y agoWell, Amazon's French competitors have to comply with French labor law. So there's a mismatch and market distortion there. If they don't want to change their labor law, you can see why they'd take other, ameliorative measures, even if banning low prices seems silly. At least Amazon can still compete on service and convenience, which are their strengths anyways. I'm not even saying I agree with labor law in France, I can just see, things being what they are, why this is more reasonable than it looks for them.
- jordanthoms 13y agoActually, it seems that amazon has 5 warehouses in France, which it ships from and which have to comply with French labor laws. The technology is probably still mostly developed in the U.S, but those workers aren't the ones we're talking about here.