If the circumstances are so dire that the worker has no other choices for employment, the alternative is no employment at all. That's the baseline comparison point for whatever job Amazon is providing and the worker always has that option as well.
Amazon is not a charity, it's a for-profit company, and arguably by building the warehouse and providing jobs it's doing more long term good than a charity would by handing out sandwiches.
Comments like yours bring to mind the phrase "No good deed goes unpunished". Would they be better off with no jobs at all?
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19...
(This is getting close to politics, a really tiresome subject which happily is banned right now on HN.)
Nope that ban is gone[1].
You can be "empathetic" by pushing for higher minimum wages, but your empathy will more likely hurt the very people you want to help - the unskilled workers.
As is often the case with "feel good" legislation it typical does more harm than good - in the long run.
But that's my point - I'm specifically not advocating any particular policy solution. I'm just advocating that we, who were lucky enough to be born in a highly developed country and are lucky enough to be highly compensated for our work, can at least acknowledge that someone else's position sucks and is unfair, instead of basically thinking "he's lucky he even has a job, he should be grateful."
I'd also argue that it's one thing to say what is possible in the current system, but I think it should be possible to acknowledge that something about the system feels wrong. I mean, some of these exact same arguments are made by the aristocrats in Downton Abbey ("These servants sure are lucky that we exist to give them jobs.")
> I'd also argue that it's one thing to say what is possible in the current system, but I think it should be possible to acknowledge that something about the system feels wrong. I mean, some of these exact same arguments are made by the aristocrats in Downton Abbey ("These servants sure are lucky that we exist to give them jobs.")
Not using every critique on a topic as a chance to express empathy does not mean one does not have any. IMNSHO, I think I have a ton of empathy. But I have a hell of a lot more rationality and I'd much rather express the latter.
If you're cold, empathy might get you a hug but rationality will get you a coat.
Should companies only ever offer work to rich people? That sounds a lot like class-based genocide.
Maybe you should try harder to see if maybe there's an underlying assumption you're making that's incorrect? Have you heard of the Double Crux? Read up on it on Less Wrong.