"You should build roads for our delivery vans and electric grids so we can electrify." Does Amazon support (vocally, not financially) social programs? Seems like it's in their interest so they can keep driving labor costs down with government picking up the slack.
Amazon "vocally" supports Amazon Smile, a "sure we give to charity which charity do you want" program that is marketed 100% to Amazon shoppers as look - don't feel bad for shopping at Amazon, we give half a percent cash back to the charity of your choice BUY MORE. This means that Amazon gave out $215m to charities... over seven years. Meanwhile, Amazon's sales revenue last year was $386b, and $1.48 trillion since 2013... ...putting Amazon's "vocal" charitable giving at 0.0000145%. But then, you asked about "social programs". As an organization, they gave $30k to the DCCC. It's been pointed out that they pay $15 an hour, but it's also been pointed out that they do this because Bernie Sanders made a scene. Back when The Everything Store wasn't called a hagiography of Jeff Bezos, you'd hear commentary along the lines of Amazon toeing the law, but also using every advantage provided by their position to the fullest extension of the law. Jeff Bezos has vocally called for patent reform, but has also said that he'll utilize every loophole in patent law as it exists. It's a very Chicago School argument - Milton Friedman said in as many words that if people actually cared about the environment, they'd make it harder to pollute and the fact that our patchwork of laws makes it super easy is a sign that Rational Economic Man wants to drink PCBs. So realistically, the way to get more money out of magacorps like Amazon is to tax the shit out of megacorps. And then make it illegal to offshore their profits through clever tax strategy. Which, I mean, makes sense. It's been pointed out for 50 years that any publicly traded corporation has an obligation to its shareholders to behave in the most sociopathically profit-seeking manner possible. Don't want sociopathic corporations? Make them unprofitable.
They are replacing all of their gas trucks with Rivian custom-designed electric vehicles next year. Which makes me happy because I want a Rivian SO GODDAMN BAD. And Amazon has a LOT of ICE-powered vehicles I'd like to see off the road. And it will create the demand for electrical infrastructure that will drive our infrastructure forward into the 20th century. And Amazon can spend a billion dollars on something and not even blink. There is value to a colossal megalith of a company going all-in on something to drive markets to supporting this sea change.
I'm glad I read the comments before replying, and I'm struggling to come up with a really good answer. I think it might be a chicken/egg thing. Because of benefits, workers are able to get by with lower wages, and because workers can get by with lower wages, employers are happy to pay less. The more I think about it the more it becomes using wages as a basic minium income. McDonald's makes use of cheap labor because the labor is cheap. The workers want to work. I did fast food in high school and it's terrible. Nobody would do that just because. It's work of last resort. Maybe the question becomes "should labor be cheap?" Does society answer that or employers? Probably both should.
Heh, I was going to suggest responding before reading the comments, but I didn't want to be bossy. This sounds very reasonable to me, but I think it's the wrong way of thinking. The question is not what workers are able to do (what is financially possible), it is what workers actually do (how they respond to their incentives in different situations). Suppose you unexpectedly inherit an annuity equal to half your salary. Financially, you are now able to have the same lifestyle even if your employer cuts pay by 50% the same day. But I doubt you would be okay with that! In practice, what happens is that the inheritance makes you more financially comfortable, so you are less inclined to work for money (ignoring factors like prestige or job satisfaction). If the inheritance were 100% of your salary, you might even consider retiring early. New outside income tends to make workers less willing to work for money, so if employers want to retain staff they would have to increase compensation, or at least not reduce it. As Caplan expressed it, "higher unemployment benefits make it easier to not apply for a job at Walmart." There are plenty of wealthy retirees who can get by with no wages, and employers would be happy to pay them nothing to work as volunteers, but in practice people only agree to work when they consider it better than any alternative, including enjoying more leisure.Because of benefits, workers are able to get by with lower wages
because workers can get by with lower wages, employers are happy to pay less.