It's very strange to describe Amazon (at least engineering roles) as a sweatshop considering how well compensated employees are.
I'd rather say I am amazed they get anyone great working for them because it really is clearly and painfully obvious that almost everyone would rather work for Google, Facebook or Microsoft regarding machine learning.
Have first hand knowledge of salaries. Amazon offers 30-50% less than other top tech companies for machine learning. There is literally no silver lining or upside as far as I can tell.
In that context, it does not matter if Amazon pays more than <other job> in <other industry> or treats employees better than <other company> in <other industry>.
It's hard to make a case that they underpay by 50%, have horrific working hours yet still have / retain an engineering workforce that's talented enough to deliver consistently.
Citation needed. Higher than compensation for experienced employees at Google/Facebook? I am not even disputing Amazon pays more later, I am saying Amazon never pays top tier AND treats employees badly AND has no perks or particular benefits to make up for it, so nobody who has the option (that I know of) wants to work there.
Also, they do not treat employees badly. Are there cases where certain managers treat their employees poorly? Of course, you can find the same anecdotal examples at company of sufficiently large size. Since the infamous 2015 NYT article, employees are treated very well on average. For perks, if you're referring to free catered meals then, yes, Amazon lacks there. But how about working in downtown Seattle instead of some random suburb outside of San Jose?
Finally, you ask for a citation about my claim while offering none for your own. My source: I work here so I actually have first hand experience.
Are you sure you were not comparing positions between product groups and research? They tend to have different compensation.
I was so surprised by Amazon's offer I conducted a small survey amongst friends and acquaintances to find which of my offers (there were more) was 'normal'.
The thing is, you can, as Amazon shows, have an enormously successful business by treating employees badly and not paying top of the market. Of course you can. Paying more does not always get you the best, and for many many tasks you don't need Jeff Deans, you just need someone to work hard and get it done.
There is tons of talented people willing to work for less than the top to get a chance to prove themselves, to learn something, to get their shot. It's just that they tend to leave Amazon (c.f. retention rates) after that, and Amazon seems to be doing ok with that. It's just a fundamentally different approach to employee management.
Amazon employs over half a million people (https://www.statista.com/statistics/234488/number-of-amazon-...). I doubt engineers make more than 5-10%, someone has to mind the fulfillment centres, and the fully automatic robotic future is yet to arrive (https://qz.com/1039169/amazon-is-looking-to-hire-50000-peopl...).
The blue collars make up the bulk, and while the accounts of white-collar sweatshop conditions are argued about, nobody ever contradicted the accounts of blue-collar workers, and numerous complaints have been filed: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-settlement-could-pave-wa....
With a company as large and complex as Amazon, many things can be relative, but if you work as an engineer or programmer at Amazon, chances are that conversation doesn't apply to you, or at least, that it applies less to you than to others.