[GavinMcG]

Why not both?

More effective exploitation of labor is a competitive advantage that lowers costs and thereby increases profits and/or allows for lower prices. Exploitation of workers and value delivered to consumers are entirely compatible.

[wizzwizz4]

Also, Amazon uses (used? it might have stopped) its influence to prevent sellers from selling things cheaper off Amazon, meaning the Amazon tax gets applied to the product everywhere – reducing consumer incentives to buy things without Amazon. This is neither exploitation of labour nor delivering value to consumers.

[marcusverus]

If Amazon were uniquely exploitative, why would anyone work there? In the US, the number of available jobs has regularly outstripped the number of unemployed, which is to say that there is no shortage of jobs--and yet folks are choosing to work at Amazon rather than any other alternative. The most straightforward explanation for this would seem to be that working at Amazon is the best option available to people who work at Amazon, which doesn't seem to be compatible with the idea that Amazon is somehow uniquely exploitative. .

[GavinMcG]

That's not an argument that the option is good or even acceptable. People who jumped from the twin towers chose their best option, too.

[marcusverus]

So Amazon is exploitative, even if they're the best option available to workers... because all employers are exploitative? This isn't an argument against Amazon at all--you're just bellyaching about "the system".

[GavinMcG]

Bellyaching is an oddly dismissive term.

"The system" is what had workers move a dead co-worker and then "put in another co-worker to keep the line going” at a Frito-Lay plant.[0]

Yeah, I'm bellyaching.

[0] https://www.cjonline.com/story/opinion/2021/07/02/frito-lay-...

[marcusverus]

This is not a reputable source, and doesn’t link any source to support its claims—it’s just a list of unsupported accusations.