Comment

Comment by gruez

> Another angle still, is why does Amazon get to have the benefit of workers who eat and have homes when they do not pay enough to enable their workers to eat and have homes?

Because the workers do not have any better option, and working for amazon while making 80% of your required expenses, is better than making 0%. It's the same reason why workers in developing countries work in sweatshops. The working conditions might be terrible, but starving in your village is worse.

>If we could set aside the suffering of the individual (which we cannot) one solution would be to let these companies devolve until they are entirely staffed by starving homeless people and see how that effects the productivity of their workforce.

This doesn't make any sense. Just because someone's homeless doesn't mean they're unproductive workers. eg. if they were living paycheck to paycheck and they were laid off. Besides, if the applicant pool is big enough and there are more job seekers than positions available they can have their pick of workers. For your scenario to work you'd need need enough people willing to boycott amazon as an employer, and given the history of consumer boycotts I doubt it will work. I'm sure amazon raising their wages a few dollars will convince enough workers to break rank.

parent gruez 5 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton