[news_to_me]

I don't think you understand — homelessness can be seen as an indirect effect of Amazon's presence, based on property values, not whether or not they employ the homeless.

Should they be responsible for this indirect effect? Well, that's the issue at root of a lot of externalities companies produce, like environmental pollution.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that the government should step in and support the homeless, in return for Amazon's tax dollars. But that requires reserving a lot of new housing development for low-income renters, which makes housing more expensive for Amazon's employees, so they have an incentive to discourage doing anything about the homeless.

It's a great example of how market forces can fail a community, actually.

[scythe]

Housing prices are rising in Seattle because it's growing. And while Amazon might be the proximal cause of Seattle's growth, the fact remains that some cities in the United States must grow in order for the economy to, you know, fulfill it's debt obligations. Seattle does not have worse homelessness than other cities which are growing at the same rate, although cities with a population decline tend to have a surplus of housing which therefore becomes cheap. So unless Amazon is to be blamed for America's systemic inability to handle homelessness in growing cities, it's a little unfair to point the finger.

[news_to_me]

I think we pretty much agree, and I don't think it's fair to blame Amazon more than any other company, proportional to their effect on the community. I'm just saying, there is an effect there, from Amazon and other business, and the market itself isn't equipped to naturally house the homeless in these circumstances. Without government intervention, the homeless population will grow without any support.

A cynic could argue that the market is operating well in this case because the homeless don't contribute much economically — but I try not to go to the same bars as those people.