You CAN become a billionaire with providing value to millions while contributing / actively worsening conditions for another section of the society.
You can understand the hate, it’s your choice not to because the outcome is a net positive to you.
back
2 comments
What has Amazon done to the society that's worsening?
If you ask a Bay Area software engineer, they'd give some feel good answer about how they love overpriced mom & pop shops and Amazon is to blame for their demise.
But, to overwhelmingly large portion of customers of Amazon, the middle class, it has provided an unthinkable amount of value. If it didn't, they'd stop using it. It is doing even more in developing countries.
And we're just talking about Amazon store.
They are providing horrible working conditions for a good chunk of their workers - tight schedules that force some to wear diapers, lack of air conditioning, discouraging human interaction etc. As they expand their warehouses and needs, this keeps deteriorating, and affecting more and more workers, who often don't have an alternative.
You consistently want to look at the impact Amazon had on consumers, which may well be positive, while ignoring that they can only achieve this by exploiting their workers.
TBH, I don't really know with certainty how conditions are in an Amazon warehouse. I do have Outside View, which tells me that they have no problem finding employment, and I haven't heard of major reasons why Amazon in particular would trap employees (like company towns of old, with company stores and other predatory practices).
So I think it's pretty fair to say that the burden of proof is on you that Amazon is worse than industry average, since people are voting with their feet to work for them.
I will tell you one thing in advance: if you touch systemic issues (such as unemployment in general), then you're advocating for a freer market with less unions, because that's how you create jobs.
If you want to go by worker preference, then you should also do that with unions: the workers are trying to form unions, and have some mild success despite massive illegal opposition and repression from the company - so, they must be unhappy with the working conditions.
"happy" and "unhappy" are not quantifiable. It is emotional slopiness that is used to get anything anyone wants. Unionization is to get unfair employee advantage in a free society where they can instantly quit and go bus tables at a restaurant. Some unions are better than others, but they are all collectivist bargaining chips that is interfering with a free labor market.
Let me be clear, I'd want good labor conditions and healthy work environments and condemn Amazon for failing in certain regards, but even that is blown out of proportion to support Unionization.
We should pass laws that provide safe working conditions. OHSA is the body that governs that.
That's how I see it as well, it's low income/poor people who actually benefit the most from amazon, because they both get higher paid jobs and lower prices.
I would be very very surprised if there is a majority of the people working for amazon that wants to form unions, I'm sure it's just a small minority.
The actual working class people probably really don't want middle class people to "fight" for them in this way, and be used as puppets in their virtue signalling competition.
Actually, I think that's a pretty conversation starter. Can you please tell me who is suffering from Amazon existing? Who has a net negative outcome from that?
Perhaps all the employees that died last year when they weren't allowed to go home during huge storms? Or was the suffering of those families worth it, as long as Amazon keeps profits up?
I am glad you find it as an opening conversation.
> Can you please tell me who is suffering from Amazon existing? Who has a net negative outcome from that?
What have you done to find out how Amazon affects different groups?