[pydry]

>But: they aren't forced to take that job

>And I fully understand that putting food on the table (especially when it's for your kids) and putting a roof over your family's head is important

I don't understand how you found these two sentences to be compatible.

[whythre]

Because Amazon is not (yet) the sole employer in our nation ?

[red-iron-pine]

Multiple employers doesn't mean multiple jobs. It's not a cornacoupia where the average joe can just walk down an aisle and be like "hmmmm maybe delivery driver?"

in a lot of places it's starbucks, subway, walmart, amazon, or piecemeal construction work, and if those jobs are filled then you're SOL killer.

[pydry]

They basically are if you are an unskilled worker.

You could theoretically take a pay cut and work at a shop or something if you managed to figure out how to live without money.

[iForgotMyPW]

if there are 100 job opportunities for a warehouse worker or delivery driver and 90 of them are Amazon doesnt leave much room for competition

[6510]

There is some dark humor if one is again forced to look at the opportunities and finds many familiar places left previously.

Back when Dutch government was pretty much the only job agency companies offering such "opportunities" would be scrubbed from the list. If they send people there they just come back looking for work again. Not something the institution was willing to spend resources on.

I imagine one could explore something like a credit score with taxes that reflect what great employer you are. A piss bottle tax could bring in hundreds of millions in tax revenue. Perhaps it should be applied as a percentage CEO wealth, income and land tax. Or call it the asshole tax.

[bradlys]

Yet has taken out most competition and other employers in its market…