I would tend to agree but add one condition: They have to pay good living wages to all their employees, not just to the few (relative to total nr. of employees) at the top level, e.g. software engineers.

Yes yes - "the market", surplus of low-skilled labor, etc. Look, as far as I can tell the "economy" and everything we have to guide it is the tool(!) and the humans are the top target, and not the other way around. That means if we find areas where the tool fails to deliver we have to adjust and use a different one. All those arguments based on "theory" place the tool first and make it the goal.

I like this quote a lot (found on twitter, I found it on reddit):

> When you blame a poor person for not getting a better job, you accept that while their job is necessary, whoever does it should be poor. (source: https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/85550195728851763...)

And from the reddit comments this one:

> My favorite thing to ever hear come out of a custom's mouth was "get a real job". Standing there, performing a service that they themselves are requesting and spending legal tender on, and they don't see the validity of said job.

I love efficiency. I love people who work hard, and who keep learning, experimenting, failing. I love entrepreneurs. I am independent myself, had a small business and worked as freelancer consultant. I also consider myself "conservative" when it comes to how to deal with "low-performers" who do so for no reason other than laziness.

And yet, I won't accept the "market outcome" of extremely low wages and stressful lives (e.g. long commutes, multiple jobs, bad housing, etc.) for people who actually try, and I'd say that includes everyone who takes one of those warehouse jobs or any other job. The theory and the tool ("the market") are failing us because they could not care less about human fates. There is no reason whatsoever to accept that. It is completely in our power to do something about it. We should use "the market" when it works and look for a different tool when it doesn't. Already society is extremely selective about it (and equally selective in its perception), so nothing I say introduces a new element, not even at scale.

So I see two choices (that I like, obviously other people can come up with other options including "everything is fine as it is"):

- Force businesses like Amazon to pay living wages. This means they will have to have higher prices. Maybe large parts of their business model might not work any more.

- Subsidize the work. Choose this option if you think having Amazon outcompete other businesses in some sectors still is better than not having it.

Of course, anything is going to have a (low-skill labor) "market distorting effect". So what? It's not like there is none right now, the price for it all is being paid even now: The burden is carried by the employees, on shoulders considerably less capable of carrying it compared to other options.