[andrewla]

There are two main points of information here that make Amazon the target.

One is its abuse of workers: limiting breaks, to the point of penalizing bathroom breaks, and setting unreasonably high performance demands. The latter, I think, being attributed as the source of the former. Setting a wage floor here does not seem to be intuitively helpful, as Amazon will still fire employees who fail to meet their performance metrics and hire new at the same wage. If they have no problem doing this at the current wage level, at a higher wage level it will be even easier to find new people willing to meet their strenuous performance demands. Here it seems like unionizing or passing worker protection laws would be necessary to improve working conditions.

The other is the issue of Amazon employees receiving food stamps (now called SNAP, apparently). This one seems particularly odd to me, because I'm not sure how to interpret it.

Is it that Amazon is more willing to employ marginally-skilled workers, or is there a bias in which individuals actually receive SNAP as a subset of those who would be eligible to receive the benefits? Closest thing to a primary source for the data about food stamps appears to be this [1], with this [2] chart representing the breakdown in five of the six states that they were able to get information for.

Quotes like "Amazon was the 28th largest employer in Arizona last year, but it ranked fifth for the number of employees enrolled in SNAP" are also ambiguous, because this could be seen as Amazon willing to give jobs to the lowest strata, with the other 27 employers not willing to even give them a job. Or even that well-intentioned policies of the other top employers to ensure that their workers are well-paid means that they hire fewer workers for the same total spend.

[1] https://newfoodeconomy.org/amazon-snap-employees-five-states...

[2] https://newfoodeconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SNAP-e...

[dragonwriter]

> The other is the issue of Amazon employees receiving food stamps (now called SNAP, apparently). This one seems particularly odd to me, because I'm not sure how to interpret it.

You should interpret it as sign that even among much of what passes for the left in America, corporate feudalism is deeply entrenched in consciousness. Instead of meeting basic needs being seen as a responsibility of public authority, to be addressed out of tax revenue, it is seen as the duty of the feudal lord (employer) to whom peasants (employees) are bound.

[andrewla]

> corporate feudalism is deeply entrenched in consciousness

Is there anything about Amazon being a corporation that really touches on this, as opposed to their simply being an employer? I feel like an analogy like this is of limited utility anyway. It's too easy to point out all the myriad ways that the existing system is different from feudalism, and it's unclear whether the negative aspects of feudalism continue to apply after having undergone such a radical transition.

> Instead of meeting basic needs being seen as a responsibility of public authority, to be addressed out of tax revenue, it is seen as the duty of the employer to whom employees are bound.

I mean, isn't the point of feudalism actually the former -- that the public authority (the feudal lords) address the basic needs? It is much easier to switch to a different employer than it is to switch to a different public authority. So it seems like what you are advocating is a return to feudalism, rather than trying to remove it.

[dragonwriter]

> I mean, isn't the point of feudalism actually the former -- that the public authority (the feudal lords) address the basic needs?

Lordship in a feudal system is a private property right (perhaps not freely tradeable because of the terms on which it was granted, but a property right nonetheless) [0], not a public position. (It exercised powers that current and even pre-feudal systems which had a concept of public authority associated with such authority, but it was not such an authority.)

[0] and while the lord/land relationship was granted from above, the lord/tenant relationship was in many feudal systems theoretically one of voluntary formation, though frequently, especially at the lowest levels, the subject of at least economic coercion.

[merpnderp]

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying the modern welfare state is feudalism.

[andrewla]

I think comparing anything in this conversation to feudalism is an empty rhetorical device. A metaphor or analogy can be useful when it motivates a proposed solution or underlying cause, but in this case it's being used as a vacuous claim in order to create a sense of guilt by association -- "hey, this thing is like feudalism, and therefore bad, because feudalism is bad".

[s73v3r_]

No, not at all. It's that, if you are employing someone full time, those people should not need public assistance. If they do, then taxpayers are subsidizing your labor costs. And for a company as big and as rich as Amazon or Wal-Mart, that's completely unacceptable.

[badpun]

Define “basic needs”. People can survive (have shelter and not die from starvation or malnutrition) on way less than the minimum wage. So, it’s already about more than the basic needs.

[jklinger410]

I always feel like a stick in the mud with these convos but you are hitting on exactly the points that I first think of.

1 - Let's target warehouses across the country for this, and raise the average cost of American production. You're right, Bernie. When we take down Amazon warehouses, as the big bogeyman, a litany of other businesses will also get dinged for this. Walmart, Target, FedEx, UPS, so-on. Shitty warehouse conditions and employee abuse is only a shock to you, and you only see Amazon as a big target for this, if you have never worked at or known someone who has worked at any low-wage factory work.

2 - Your point about food stamps is dead on. I have asked everyone I know how they feel about Amazon paying someone more just because they have 5 kids. Regardless of what work they perform or, their experience, usefulness, or quality that they do their job with. Accepting food stamps has very little do with your employer, and more to do with your job and financial obligations.

I can't see Bernie's perspective any more. The pie in the sky legislation that he proposes make me believe that he actually doesn't intend to win the presidency. He's just here to make loud noises.

[dlgeek]

One thing to consider - it could mean Amazon uses more part-time/seasonal workers than those other companies, since I believe SNAP benefits are based on annual income, rather than hourly pay.