[aio2]

Here's my perspective. Not exactly related, but I hope you understand how I think:

If I am a small shipping company, and all I need is someone to wrap boxes and store them, and the load isn't much, then should I be paying them full time for the job? Heck, should I pay them a living wage? No. I pay them the value of the job.

Obviously, we need a certain minimum wage because nobody deserves to get scammed and make 10 cents a day, but at the same time, this push for all these benefits isn't realistic. I wish it was, but it isn't.

Obviously, my example is different from Amazon, but this is more a business owner perspective.

[int_19h]

If they are working for you full time, but you aren't paying them living wage, how exactly are they supposed to make ends meet?

[aio2]

I don't know, but I think it is unfair to put all responsibility onto the business owner. In theory, a job is an agreement where you work for someone, and they pay you. Certain benefits may be required depending on circumstances, but making companies provide so many benefits is not a fair option.

Keep in mind, I'm not opposed to companies providing benefits, but I think regulating this would create more trouble than good.

[robtherobber]

We let businesses exist for one reason, so people can actually live (and I say let, because it is society - that is, its individuals - that has a put a system in place whereby such entities can exist and do what they do). If a job doesn't pay enough for that, the business isn't worth keeping around from the society's point of view. Workers should be paid decently, no matter what — profits or no profits. If an industry or company can't afford to pay fair wages, it’s not worth having, plain and simple.

On top of fair pay, companies owe their employees more. Businesses don't exist in a vacuum—they're tools we use to make life better for everyone. The entire economy is just a system we built to serve people, not the other way around.

Right now, companies often act like mini-dictatorships, where the tradeoff — giving up freedoms in exchange for money — ends up hurting society even if it props up the economy.

In short: if a company isn't contributing positively, it's failing at its purpose and should either disappear, or forced to fulfill its role.

[immibis]

Why should someone bother working full time for you if working full time for you won't make ends meet?

If the workload is so low why don't you just do the work yourself?

[FireBeyond]

My ex wanted to go work at a veterinarian's office. Several in the area had openings, but one significant caveat:

Each was offering only part-time hours (16-24h) but required "full-time availability".

That is not an fair exchange of effort.

Small business owners all too often (as much as they are also a valuable part of the community) think that they are entitled to far too much of their employees, and seem to think they have some inherent right to not just their business, but to their desired profit margins.

One local business here closed recently with this self-centered, presumptuous and tone-deaf message:

> It is so sad to see that our dream with all its potential has collapsed because the community was not willing to support it.

[aio2]

I understand your frustration with these unfair offers, and I am not supporting that. In your case, you make an unfair generalization of small business owners and base your explanation of it.

In theory, if one employer offers a job with great benefits, they will win over the employer with not as many benefits. Clearly, that wasn't happening in your example.

[Hikikomori]

Unless you're the only one selling a product that people need and want to buy you're going to be undercut by your competitors that aren't paying for these things either as that is how it works in America. Quite expected when there's no worker shortage so companies have to compete for workers, but that's not the kind of competition capitalists want.

In most of Europe workers wouldn't have to worry about any of that, everyone enjoys the basic package. So your competitors wouldn't be able to undercut you on price by not providing healthcare and thus force you to do the same.

Is it the best system for startups, corporate profits and the stock market? Obviously not but people are happier.

[aio2]

Thank you for your response. I hope I'm not misunderstanding here, but enlighten me if I am.

I wish all the benefits are possible, but it isn't feasible because different countries function differently, and I think your point explains it much better than I could have explained it.

America and Europe are different places, with different economies and as a result have different luxuries they can afford and costs they must bear. This means it is easier to offer benefits in Europe than America.