Not talking about it in absolute terms. How about talking about it in terms of median wage per job title? Putting big numbers in glitzy blog posts only serves to dazzle and obfuscates how easy it would be for Amazon to double or triple that number with basically no dent in the wallet from doing so.
You think Amazon could spend an extra $700 million to $1.4 billion with "basically no dent in the wallet"? I guess I understand why you're frustrated if you think that's the case, but it's just not true.
Jeff Bezos owns 55.55M shares of Amazon stock (https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1043298.htm). Since just April 1st, the value of that stock has increased by ~55.55M*($2400 - $1900) = $27.775B. I know net_worth != cash, but he can and routinely does (see link above) liquidate stock to fund other projects.
In this context, I think $700M is equivalent to a coin tossed in a fountain.
That's fair. This cashflow is obviously not available to Amazon directly, but I could see an argument that Jeff Bezos specifically ought to make more funds available. (Maybe he will - if you believe the headlines he was entirely hands-off the retail business until recently.)
And this is not an annualized number, they started the pay increase last month. This is a huge figure, especially for a their razor thin margin retail business.
If you had an intended figure in terms of the median wage by employee class at AMZN, we could pretty easily get a good guess for that in terms of dollars and cents by looking at Glassdoor or Payscale. Conversely, you could provide the sort of median wage ratio you were thinking of, such that you'd be satisfied with Amazon's response; and we could compare them the other way around.
If you find the wording of GGP's question incorrect, can I ask what compensation level you would have preferred Amazon provide, either in absolute terms OR relative to some other measure?
I didn't know what you meant. I thought you meant what you said. I'm grateful that the parent gave you a chance to clarify, and don't see this as a "derailment". Surely you aren't impugning their motive?
That’s what I have to pay as a small employer to keep people for basic assembly and packaging during this. That’s what I felt was fair, since that’s what unemployment pays in my state. I figured I have to at least match that, so I did. I had to let a few people go and scale back, but helped them all navigate the UI claim’s process. Paid out their PTO balance to hold them over. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night asking people to come to work for less knowing it would endanger them and pay them less than literally being unemployed and staying at home. I will bring them all back as soon as I can. I let them all keep their health insurance for the time being, which I pay for 100%.
If a small 10 person shop can do it, so can Amazon.
The idea that anyone, anywhere in the US, is making less than $20/hr during this is morally repugnant to me.