Many Amazon Warehouse Workers are on Food Stamps

[kahless]

Opposition to government interference is no excuse for defending Amazon and their anti employee practices. Corporations are just as bad as bad as the government and need to be held to the same standards of scepticism.

It is pathetic when Amazon, Walmart and others pay such poor wages that their employees are forced onto food stamps. That just means we the tax payers are subsidizing Amazon. Yet people do not ridicule Amazon for their bad practices but rather ridicule the workers just trying to make a living? Is this some kind of joke? Sound like a bunch of Mitt Romney wannabees.

Working two full time jobs? Yeah screw living a balanced life where you have satisfaction. Make everyone work every minute of their waking hours to survive. Great platform to lure in support.

Not everyone has the freedom to just quit and find a better job. Not everyone has bargaining power to get better wages? Why would you side with the dominating party? I really do not understand the mindset. An employer-employee relationship should be equal but it is not. The employer more often than not has the power and dictates the wage. The employee generally has no choice but to accept. It is so bad and one sided that programs like food stamps even exist to begin with. If employers paid a reasonable wage such programs would have no purpose. So if you are angry about these welfare programs then attack the real root of the problem which is greedy corporations. Obviously I am not including all businesses as some pay fair wages and treat their employees well and others do the best they can. But Amazon and Walmart? No, those are not good corps.

Spot on. I would specifically however indicate monopolies as the culprit rather than "corporations" which can mean anyone even a very small unprofitable businesss. A local business can be more easily boycotted if they are immoral with their employees to affect change to their behavior rather than these large monopolies.

The monopolies are stifling the free market system while dictating - owning politicians in multiple jurisdictions to enact oppressive tax policies to benefit them over the rest of us.

 

[tod evans]

Arent't the employees investors or stakeholders in a way? At least if they hope to be there a while providing labor and earning income long term while taking care of the facility and equipment?

Is the local community even a stakeholder for inviting this behemoth warehouse to build there with the idea of using up so much of their available land will provide decent jobs?

Maybe the mistake is small towns looking to better their local economies trusted in Amazon, but instead of receiving an economic benefit, they feel exploited.

I read an article from the UK whining about Amazon but can't recall any from this side of the pond, do you have one you're particularity fond of?

 

[angelatc]

Canned response #1: "all poor people are lazy, because it's not possible to be poor unless you're lazy."

Canned response #2 "employers have a moral obligation to pay whatever a person needs to live, regardless of what their labor is worth."

This is why we can't have nice things.

Nobody said poor people are lazy. What I am saying is that markets determine wages, and there's no such thing as a "reasonable" wage.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Are you implying that Amazon owns the labor market?

They have such a large presence, they probably set the standard which their few competitors will follow. In some cases if they build a Warehouse in a small community, they probably do dominate the local labor market.

 

[angelatc]

They have such a large presence, they probably set the standard which their few competitors will follow. In some cases if they build a Warehouse in a small community, they probably do dominate the local labor market.

So the answer then is no, Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on labor.

Like I said above, Mexicans can walk from Baja to Birmingham and find work. But Americans can't travel 200 miles to improve their own lives? Like Tom Woods said, I'd be freaking embarrassed if I was so worthless I worked at a place for a decade and couldn't convince a single person anywhere that I was worth more than minimum wage.

 

[VIDEODROME]

This noise is just union propaganda - they failed at unionizing WalMart, so now they're going to try to weasel their way into Amazon. Bezos is a prog though, so he'll probably allow it. Snicker.

At least with Labor Unions you just have 2 parties negotiate wages and the Union gives the workers more leverage against a big company like Amazon. The role of government at that point would be to enforce the contract they sign.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

They have such a large presence, they probably set the standard which their few competitors will follow. In some cases if they build a Warehouse in a small community, they probably do dominate the local labor market.

There's this thing called the Division of Labor, bro. Amazon isn't going to magically suck people up into jobs they don't want just to destroy the community. *dramatic Michael Moore-esque scene here* Amazon jobs are low-skill and even in small communities would only draw people who are interested in such work anyway. And since value is subjective, we know plenty of people value working locally over working for national brands.

 

[VIDEODROME]

So the answer then is no, Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on labor.

Like I said above, Mexicans can walk from Baja to Birmingham and find work. But Americans can't travel 200 miles to improve their own lives? Like Tom Woods said, I'd be freaking embarrassed if I was so worthless I worked at a place for a decade and couldn't convince a single person anywhere that I was worth more than minimum wage.

So if these Mexicans are working so much harder than lazy Americans, will they're wages go up dramatically when they're managers recognize their high labor value?

 

[TheCount]

Arent't the employees investors or stakeholders in a way?

...

Is the local community even a stakeholder for inviting this behemoth warehouse to build there with the idea of using up so much of their available land will provide decent jobs?

They're both stakeholders in that they have some leverage over the company, and a wise company will seek to keep both groups content for maximum productivity and good PR.


They also have an interest in attracting the employer to the area as well as keeping its operations in the area, and therefore must offer the employer labor, land, etc. at a competitive price. What would the employees and local community rather have: no warehouse and no jobs, or a warehouse and moderate-to-poor quality jobs? These warehouses are not being placed on prime real estate in nice locations; that area is selected because the labor and land is cheap and for few other reasons (access to highways, markets, etc).


If all of the other companies in the market are benefiting from government subsidy of their employees' wages through welfare programs, should this company put itself out of business trying to do otherwise? Is that better for the employees?

 

[tod evans]

So if these Mexicans are working so much harder than lazy Americans, will they're wages go up dramatically when they're managers recognize their high labor value?

Wages reflect what you produce.......................Unless you work for government.

 

[kahless]

It is amusing that you are singling out Amazon and Walmart. The truth is that such unskilled workers for almost any business are on or eligible for food stamps. Especially if they have children.

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

 

[Zippyjuan]

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

It has worked out well for the Waltons (WalMart).

 

[kahless]

It has worked out well for the Waltons (WalMart).

Yep, some here will give them cover to. They are detrimental to individual liberty.

 

[TheCount]

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

The reason that Amazon is in the position that it is in, and has the wealth that it does, is because Jeff Bezos didn't give away all of the 'extra' money that he made. Also, if he did what you said, then some other company would immediately emerge to be Amazon 2.0, minus "Kahless Says You Gotta Be Nice" and guess what would happen?


Also, relevant meme:

 

[Swordsmyth]

Amazon is an arm of the powers that be, the people who designed the system to socialize their costs and privatize all the profits, more government is not the solution but they deserve criticism and any private efforts to avoid using them.

AnCaps are all too willing to defend the oligarchs' left hand as long as it wears a sock puppet that is labeled "private enterprise".

 

[Danke]

The reason that Amazon is in the position that it is in, and has the wealth that it does, is because Jeff Bezos didn't give away all of the 'extra' money that he made. Also, if he did what you said, then some other company would immediately emerge to be Amazon 2.0, minus "Kahless Says You Gotta Be Nice" and guess what would happen?


Also, relevant meme:

His company wasn't making money for years (still isn't in its core business) , just people investing in it.

 

[angelatc]

The difference is Amazon could do something about it over small businesses that are financially unable to. This makes Jeff Bezo's an immoral scumbag. Amazon should be recognized for what they are rather than put on a pedestal because they have a decent UI.

If you have vast wealth and the employees that live in our community are starving, what would you do? Let the other poor taxpayers pickup the tax burden or step up and do something about it?

Option C - Nothing. Labor is a commodity, the price rises and falls with demand.

 

[kahless]

The reason that Amazon is in the position that it is in, and has the wealth that it does, is because Jeff Bezos didn't give away all of the 'extra' money that he made. Also, if he did what you said, then some other company would immediately emerge to be Amazon 2.0, minus "Kahless Says You Gotta Be Nice" and guess what would happen?

Jeff Bezo's wealth 119.4 billion USD.

Yet his employees are on food stamps. If you have that kind of wealth and allow the taxpayers to pick the tab so your employees do not starve then you are a scumbag piece of shit with money.

Every post you made in reply to me indicates you support growing government and/or scumbaggery.

 

[angelatc]

Yep, some here will give them cover to. They are detrimental to individual liberty.

That's absurd.

 

[kahless]

Option C - Nothing. Labor is a commodity, the price rises and falls with demand.

You do realize we are dealing with a unique historic monopoly entity such as Amazon, right?

That's absurd.

You clearly are giving Amazon/Bezo's cover.