So at least in Europe, where they can unionize and can and do protest for their rights, I don’t see them as any worse than many other multinational chains that do the same.
Do you happen to know whether they actually are unionized in EU countries though, or just could? Genuine question, as I couldn’t tell you (as a German citizen)
Aside from that though, even if warehouse and delivery workers’ conditions were absolutely fine, their monopolistic tendencies are still somewhat of an issue. I’ll try not to turn this into a full essay, because this topic can get real philosophical REAL fast (we’re about 3 winded sentences away, I’d guesstimate).
But: AWS aka Amazon’s cloud business prints SO incredibly much money that they can perhaps unfairly undercut a grocery competitor like Kroger’s, Aldi, and whatnot are their names, that they can start to have a really, really good advantage quite quickly (as hinted to by OP’s order above: not plastics, not electronics, not household goods – food). In case any reader isn’t aware, grocery chains’ margins are absurdly, comically low.
The firm policies/microeconomics philosophy comes in here: how much cross-subsidizing should an undertaking actually be allowed to do? In other words, when is a company expanding too much – even though expansion is something that you could argue to be a core, if not the integral part of what defines a business? Europeans will perhaps see this a bit more strictly, whereas Americans might be inclined to answer close to unlimited here, but keep in mind, this can lead to Mega-everything-corp faster than you realize or like.
I didn’t make all of this up on the spot just now, BTW (some first further “readings”). This has been a somewhat well known issue for some years now, and people knew there could be a day coming where we as a (global) society have to ask ourselves: How many areas can a company dominate in before it becomes too dangerous?
Amazon may be monopolistic, but I have access to more products through from different brand names than I do through the rest of the local multinational chains.
That’s the core issue, I think.
Amazon might be the first major case of monopolistic tendencies where the firm’s behavior hasn’t been obviously disadvantageous (or obvious it will be in the not so distant future) to the consumers from the getgo. So you’d effectively be regulating and banning towards a worse consumer experience, as of now…
As an ex-warehouse employee, I will go out of my way of I have to get something just to not buy something online. The conditions of most warehouses I’ve seen, especially in this heat, should be illegal.
People here are saying they want to pay Amazon’s competitors, and your argument is that they shouldn’t do that because the workers should be starting their own Amazon competitors…
Their social situation probably does. If you are a good for nothing, or they won’t hire you anywhere else, what would you rather? Being homeless or working for Amazon?
Well my social situation means I have to take a bargain where it becomes available to me. Not just hypothetically, I’ve actually been homeless in the past so I don’t want to end up there again because I was spending more than I need to of my meager income in some desperate attempt to support people who own brick and mortar businesses. That’s a lot more than I’ve ever had.
Yeah, and warehouse workers piss into bottles and cannot unionize.
Removed by mod
Do you happen to know whether they actually are unionized in EU countries though, or just could? Genuine question, as I couldn’t tell you (as a German citizen)
Aside from that though, even if warehouse and delivery workers’ conditions were absolutely fine, their monopolistic tendencies are still somewhat of an issue. I’ll try not to turn this into a full essay, because this topic can get real philosophical REAL fast (we’re about 3 winded sentences away, I’d guesstimate).
But: AWS aka Amazon’s cloud business prints SO incredibly much money that they can perhaps unfairly undercut a grocery competitor like Kroger’s, Aldi, and whatnot are their names, that they can start to have a really, really good advantage quite quickly (as hinted to by OP’s order above: not plastics, not electronics, not household goods – food). In case any reader isn’t aware, grocery chains’ margins are absurdly, comically low.
The firm policies/microeconomics philosophy comes in here: how much cross-subsidizing should an undertaking actually be allowed to do? In other words, when is a company expanding too much – even though expansion is something that you could argue to be a core, if not the integral part of what defines a business? Europeans will perhaps see this a bit more strictly, whereas Americans might be inclined to answer close to unlimited here, but keep in mind, this can lead to Mega-everything-corp faster than you realize or like.
I didn’t make all of this up on the spot just now, BTW (some first further “readings”). This has been a somewhat well known issue for some years now, and people knew there could be a day coming where we as a (global) society have to ask ourselves: How many areas can a company dominate in before it becomes too dangerous?
Removed by mod
That’s the core issue, I think.
Amazon might be the first major case of monopolistic tendencies where the firm’s behavior hasn’t been obviously disadvantageous (or obvious it will be in the not so distant future) to the consumers from the getgo. So you’d effectively be regulating and banning towards a worse consumer experience, as of now…
Removed by mod
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/EYPs-ya_GDA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
As an ex-warehouse employee, I will go out of my way of I have to get something just to not buy something online. The conditions of most warehouses I’ve seen, especially in this heat, should be illegal.
SDA is the union that represents Amazon workers in Australia.
As long as you weren’t buying empty bottles, that’s probably OK.
And I thought it was the drivers that have to piss in bottles.
No one’s forcing them to work there 🤷♂️. Start your own amazon.
yeah, minimum wage worker, just beat one the biggest companies of human history
People said the same thing about Walmart but the great Jeff bezos worked hard and did it.
People here are saying they want to pay Amazon’s competitors, and your argument is that they shouldn’t do that because the workers should be starting their own Amazon competitors…
Yep
Their social situation probably does. If you are a good for nothing, or they won’t hire you anywhere else, what would you rather? Being homeless or working for Amazon?
Well my social situation means I have to take a bargain where it becomes available to me. Not just hypothetically, I’ve actually been homeless in the past so I don’t want to end up there again because I was spending more than I need to of my meager income in some desperate attempt to support people who own brick and mortar businesses. That’s a lot more than I’ve ever had.
So it’s amazons fault for giving “good for nothings” a place to work? Sounds like they are helping the situation