[CryptoPunk]

No one is entitled to a job. They are willing to do the work asked of them in exchange for the pay they receive. They are not victims and Amazon is not mistreating them.

More generally, this idea that paying more is better for the world is misguided and over-simplistic. You can often reduce suffering in the world more by paying 100 very poor people sweat shop wages than 10 middle class people developed world wages, and that is the kind of choice you have to make when deciding how to spend your capital.

We cannot simply increase the wealth at our disposal and pay all 100 people high wages. Scarcity of resources is a reality we have to be mature enough to contend with, and that means looking at more than just the direct and immediate effects, and factoring in opportunity costs, to weigh the trade-offs.

[PhasmaFelis]

If you want to argue that, due to scarcity, we can't maximize global quality of life without mistreating some people, that is least a coherent argument.

There is no coherent argument that Amazon isn't treating its employees poorly, even relative to other companies in the same fields. Read some articles about working conditions at Amazon. This one's a decent starting point: https://gizmodo.com/reminder-amazon-treats-its-employees-lik...

[CryptoPunk]

I know about the difficult working conditions, but calling it mistreatment implies Amazon doesn't have a right to offer these terms in the free market, and that the employees would be better off if they didn't have the jobs.

The working conditions are voluntarily assumed by the employees, so it can't be mistreatment, and the terms offered are the best the employees could find on the market, so they are better off for these jobs existing. I don't see the rationale behind calling it mistreatment and implying Amazon is having w negative impact.