11–20 of 144 posts
>> Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos received $1,681,840 in compensation in 2017, the proxy statement said, $1.6 million of which represents the cost of providing his security. Is that pretty typical for a person who is say, in the richest 5-100 people in the world to spend on security? What kind of protection does that buy?
This means a very sizable percentage of Amazon's workforce (though not quite half) could qualify for SNAP. "130% of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,213 a month, or about $26,600 a year." https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...
This is a great article for demonstrating how mean and median can be used to manipulate perception.
Average/mean is disproportionately influenced by a small number of highly paid employees.
In this case, the article is clearly demonstrating that despite Amazon's commanding market share, incredible wealth, and the largess bestowed upon their executives, some of their workforce is so poorly paid that they may not even make a living wage.
This means a very sizable percentage of Amazon's workforce (though not quite half) could qualify for SNAP. "130% of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,213 a month, or about $26,600 a year." https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...
It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a society where it's possible for the people currently working for $26k/yr to have a stable roadmap to much higher earnings. But I don't think Amazon alone is to blame for the problem.
This is a great article for demonstrating how mean and median can be used to manipulate perception.
>In Seattle, Amazon’s more than 45,000 employees are paid an average of more than $110,000, according to an analysis of individual worker data posted to job review site Glassdoor. The median, or midpoint, of Amazon’s 566,000 individual employee salaries worldwide stood far lower.
Granted, we are using average data from Glassdoor, whereas Amazon is self-reporting the median salary information. Plus, Amazon has part-time workers whose wages it annualizes to include the dataset. This makes me wonder though, are they counting the benefits that those workers are not receiving due to their lower number of hours?
This is a great article for demonstrating how mean and median can be used to manipulate perception.
Seattletimes.com
Don't they like Amazon out there or did the author fail an interview for Amazon or something?
No idea if they operate in Brazil, but using it as an example, USD $28,446 in Brazil is a great salary.
This means a very sizable percentage of Amazon's workforce (though not quite half) could qualify for SNAP. "130% of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,213 a month, or about $26,600 a year." https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...
You're assuming 2 kids and 1 income earner, though. It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a society where it's possible for the people currently working for $26k/yr to have a stable roadmap to much higher earnings. But I don't think Amazon alone is to blame for the problem.
Edit: Here's an article claiming it's more than 10% in Ohio that are on SNAP: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-e...