[nlfwhulsdhouv]

That's just great. They're creating this massive underclass of workers that won't be able to afford any of the services they provide. They'll be constantly monitored and any mistake will force them out of the entirely of Amazon's monopolized workforce.

Amazon is playing with fire here. Hopefully these new workers will be able to develop solidarity to resist these actions, because the upper middle class these products are marketed to sure aren't going to care about the implications of the surveillance as long as it means no one can lift their new laptop.

[subject117]

> They're creating this massive underclass of workers that won't be able to afford any of the services they provide.

My understanding is they set a corporate minimum wage of $15/hour. Is this not a higher wage than more than half of Americans?

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/51-percent-of-all-a...

[nlfwhulsdhouv]

Sure, it's certainly better than nothing. However, it's not really altruistic on Amazon's part. They avoid significant unionization, workplace democratization, or material social change by paying their workers a tiny bit more, while still extracting enormous surplus value from them. Furthermore, when they increased wages they cut benefits.

Regardless, this doesn't invalidate my point. $15/hr is still no where near enough to participate in a lot of these at-home services. I make many multiples of that and find a cleaner + multiple security subscriptions too expensive for my taste.

[criley2]

Calling Amazon products upper middle class is like calling iPhones upper middle class.

Yeah... uh, about that...

[nlfwhulsdhouv]

I certainly wasn't claiming all Amazon products (or even some of the home security products in isolation) were upper middle class.

However, most at-home services _are_ upper middle class, and owning a reasonable number of security products is upper middle class. Furthermore, we're interested in the intersection of those two things, implying an even more well-off group.

[dsfyu404ed]

>is like calling iPhones upper middle class.

They are. Based on my experience few below the upper middle buy a used one (they opt for used/refurbished).

[criley2]

Haha you're why the commercials work. Hook line and sinker.

Many 'poor' people are poor because of spending habits and lack of saving discipline, and it's a hall mark of the modern poor in America to drive a car you can't afford, own an expensive phone, have a big TV, etc. Whether buying it on credit, or buying with money that could/should have been used to pay off debt, save fore retirement etc, it's trivial to buy something like an iPhone for almost anyone in America.

iPhones are BELOVED by the poor as a "rich" status symbol, for all the same reasons why you think the poor don't own them.

P.S. you can get a brand new iphone for like $30/mo from any major seller. An 18 year old with their first fast food job can buy a big shiny iPhone today.

P.P.S most of the 'upper middle class' I'm familiar with doesn't do iPhones and especially not brand new ones, they do budget phones or cheaper android devices because you don't get wealthy spending $1000 every 2 years on a device that costs $275 to manufacture.

[nlfwhulsdhouv]

This is barely worth a reply based on your tone but here we go:

(1) "Poor people make bad financial decisions" is practically a meme at this point. Why do they make those decisions? Perhaps the incessant advertising and rampant consumerism in America? Poor financial education? Why not fix those things instead of demonizing them for enjoying a few minor comforts in their lives?

(2) How does buying an iPhone have anything to do with rent? $500/yr on a phone would barely put a dent in Bay Area or LA rent. Once you include total cost of living the new iPhone is a rounding error, even in 'cheap' places, and especially if you have health problems.

(3) I'm not sure what upper middle class people you're talking about, but all of them I know have new iPhones. You don't save yourself to a $200k/yr income, that's a shitty argument pushed by the "personal financial responsibility" press to make rich people feel justified in their immorality.

You're just looking for reasons to feel justified keeping people poor. If you can't afford to eat, it's not because you're overspending on a car or a phone, you're probably driving a beater you pray every morning will get you to work.

Not only that, you're _still_ missing the point of my post. AT HOME SERVICES and CLOUD SECURITY PRODUCTS are for rich people. No poor person has a cleaner and a fucking ring doorbell, get real.