This means that the public is subsidizing a company owned by the richest man in the world because he refuses to pay his employees a living wage. Doesn't this sound wrong?
If you work full-time and you do a good job, then you should earn a wage that you can live on.
Should Amazon workers only barely be able to afford rent and food. Should they have $0 left over after rent+groceries? $1? What amount is reasonable, vs what amount becomes excessive? What if they have a child? Or an elderly parent? Or student loans?
> but it has now extended to so many other things that I wouldn't really call necessities.
What ridiculous lavish spending do you think Amazon warehouse workers are capable of buying with their (on average ~$12/hr) wages?
The general argument is that a living wage should cover life. All people are entitled to enough money that they can pay for rent, pay for food, pay for healthcare, pay for basic transportation, and have some amount of discretionary money to spend anyway they want (like say, raising a family, or continuing their education, or having a hobby, or volunteering for a cause their passionate about, or whatever)
breathable air
drinkable water
nutritious food
safe shelter
quiet and dark sleeping area
secure property storage
equal access to the commons
basic education
job skills education
scientific/analytic education
access to communication
access to markets
personal mobility
medical care
social contact
family formation
social organization
political influence
.------------------------------
< this is where I draw my line
'------------------------------
mercantile education
philosophical education
luxury goods
psychological individuation
independent exploration or introspection
artistic and aesthetic pursuits
finding a meaning in life
spiritual enlightenment
Veblen goodsCan you not assign blame to someone abusing a broken system? Surely you can. They are still abusing the system.
If I use roads or public parks, or my social security, does that mean that my employer never paid me enough, then?
And we already have a concept that covers this. It is called the minimum wage. It makes no sense to talk about government services that people are using when you should instead just raise the minimum wage.
These people needed government support, and Bezos is giving them a job, so now they need less government support than they did before. Bezos is helping to give money to people who would have otherwise been totally on welfare.
Destroying jobs is a good thing. It means that Amazon can pass on the savings to consumers. I know that Amazon is disliked in Seattle & the bay area, but if you go around the rest of the country, people love amazon.
Democracy is not working? Whats the alternative.