[lovich]

Not caring about the environment you operate in, whether its so much pollution that your rivers light on fire or the human element that might make your workers depressed, just because it doesn't show up on a spreadsheet is an incredibly short sighted move that can and will reduce profits in the long term.

And if a company was willing to fuck over everything as long as it increases shareholder value then it should be regulated. You already implicitly agree with that viewpoint unless you believe that Amazon should be allowed to murder or enslave people as long as it increases shareholder value

[krapp]

I do agree with it, but... Amazon is regulated. They're already not allowed to murder or enslave people - and they still come as close to wage slavery as they legally can in their warehouses. The law doesn't require them to care about the homeless, and the market doesn't seem to care about them caring about the homeless, so Amazon doesn't care about the homeless.

Their culture is legendary for its relentless focus on cutting costs and driving employees hard for the sake of the bottom line, at all levels. I cannot see them spending a dime on fighting homelessness, even as a PR move, unless they expected to make a dollar back, that's just the way they operate.

[lovich]

Ah, I see. Yes, I don't imagine that Amazon would do anything unless they saw a return on investment either. I do think that situations like that do affect their bottom line though, at least in terms of employee morale when it happens in their neighborhoods. I have heard that Amazon tends to churn through their employees, but they are getting big enough where I don't know if they can keep doing that and keep the quality they want