21–30 of 487 posts
How many non-Amazon warehouse worked are on food stamps or Medicaid? Without that comparison this title is just flame bait.
If you feel anger when reading that the largest and most profitable companies in the world won’t pay a living wage, the. You should be. There isn’t two side to simple greed and exploitation.
What percentage of non-amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps? We all love to hate Amazon, but such statistics are meaningless without context.
I dont agree. It's more about the relative income from the warehouse workers to the CEO. Even if the post office has the exact same percentage of workers on food stamps, I would argue that because the postmaster general makes so much less than Amazon leadership that Amazon has the privilege and ability to do better, and still run a profitable business. It's about profit, and sharing it more equitably.
What percentage of non-amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps? We all love to hate Amazon, but such statistics are meaningless without context.
I dont agree. It's more about the relative income from the warehouse workers to the CEO. Even if the post office has the exact same percentage of workers on food stamps, I would argue that because the postmaster general makes so much less than Amazon leadership that Amazon has the privilege and ability to do better, and still run a profitable business. It's about profit, and sharing it more equitably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not, it's mostly a sign that benefits are working. Giving workers benefits /increases/ their compensation because it increases their negotiating power. This means they're earning more than they otherwise would. Not less. If it was less, that would mean benefits are bad and we should take them away!
It's essentially just a subsidy to large employers? So they can not pay their employees enough? Is this what these programs are intended for? I didn't understand it that way but maybe I'm wrong.
... Just like Walmart. It's a shame.
It's not, it's mostly a sign that benefits are working. Giving workers benefits /increases/ their compensation because it increases their negotiating power. This means they're earning more than they otherwise would. Not less. If it was less, that would mean benefits are bad and we should take them away!
Why would they give someone more because they come to them with no alternative and under pressure from the government to take any Job.
What percentage of non-amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps? We all love to hate Amazon, but such statistics are meaningless without context.
No one who can hold down a job and is currently employed should need government assistance to survive. Doesn’t matter if it’s Amazon or its competitors.
Imagine a scenario where "assistance" wasn't stigmatized and Amazon had to pay higher taxes fully proportionate with the cost of paying it's employees properly?
I mean - at that point they might as well pay people properly!
How many non-Amazon warehouse worked are on food stamps or Medicaid? Without that comparison this title is just flame bait.
What’s the point of a job, if you can’t live on it? If you feel anger when reading that the largest and most profitable companies in the world won’t pay a living wage, the. You should be. There isn’t two side to simple greed and exploitation.
Minimum wage increases generally do not negatively affect employment, but if you set the minimum wage high enough to be a head of household "living wage", it certainly would make people unemployed.
Or instead we could pay people welfare benefits and support them that way.
What percentage of non-amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps? We all love to hate Amazon, but such statistics are meaningless without context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not, it's mostly a sign that benefits are working. Giving workers benefits /increases/ their compensation because it increases their negotiating power. This means they're earning more than they otherwise would. Not less. If it was less, that would mean benefits are bad and we should take them away!
It's essentially just a subsidy to large employers? So they can not pay their employees enough? Is this what these programs are intended for? I didn't understand it that way but maybe I'm wrong.
As prior evidence shows, there is always someone willing to work for less, if they have to. As such, the only real solution to the issue that does not make the economic situation worse for employees is to punish corporations for paying so little that their employees need benefits from the government.
Anything else only hurts the employees or provides greater subsidy to the employer.