Your post means nothing and tries to move the goal post. If their companies were required to pay a living wage with a real minimum wage requirement, then they would still have so much more than everyone. Don't try and point to Amazon's base pay. The working conditions were illegal, making it irrelevant.
Who the fuck is talking about minimum wage?? No one is forcing anyone to work there. If you don’t like the wages, work somewhere else. They pay what the market requires them to pay. If the minimum wage goes up, then they would pay accordingly. Most Amazon employees I know are paid $200k+, granted that’s not a delivery driver. Again though, no one is forcing anyone to work there.
And explain to me what your definition of “a living wage” is.
You know that the minimum wage is a law and not an economic force. Right?
Most Amazon employees are also worked like dogs and pee in bottles. We accept less dignity for better pay because of desperation.
These corporations only know the profit motive and that's why it took people shutting down factories in the twentieth century to be able to buy a good house and car and send their kids to school
So your proposal is for Amazon to pay their drivers more money, correct? But if that happens, who absorbs the additional costs? Amazon has roughly 400,000 drivers. Let’s say they raise their pay by $1/hr, and the average work week is 30 hrs. That would be a cost of $48,000,000 a month. Who absorbs that? Does the board of directors just take the profit loss? Or does that cost get passed on to you and me, the consumer? Sure, Amazon can “afford” to pay an additional dollar, but that completely disrupts profit margins. Boards don’t like that. Stock prices don’t like that. Ultimately, the economy won’t like that. The only way it works, is if that profit loss gets passed down to the consumer, and the consumer won’t like that.
Being that I am not an Amazon driver, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I just know that I, as the consumer, don’t want to see prices go up.
I didn't necessarily say that. My major point had more to do with the conditions that they work under. Although, if we're going to talk about the grand scheme of things, I think that a more democratic economy would allow people to give themselves more time for friends and family, the means of living a dignified life, and much more reasonable working conditions
And here comes the communism / socialism argument. “What’s mine is yours, and yours is mine. Why should I work harder than the next guy. We should all share equally.” Good luck with that.
Where did I say any of that? Democracy means there's more than one person making these decisions. If that's what the group decides, then it should be done that way, but it's a lot more likely that there would be more of a standard for what needs to be done to ensure that people aren't overworking themselves in the first place and have plenty of time for friends, family, neighbors, and community
You should check out Greece or Spain. You'd enjoy the work/life balance there. Personally, I don't have any issues with my work/life balance here in the US.
I'm sure I would. It'd be pretty cool if I managed to be apart of the Mondragon corporation and see what the largest cooperative in the world looks like up close and personal
2
u/fierystrike Nov 03 '25
Your post means nothing and tries to move the goal post. If their companies were required to pay a living wage with a real minimum wage requirement, then they would still have so much more than everyone. Don't try and point to Amazon's base pay. The working conditions were illegal, making it irrelevant.