Slashdot Mirror
Many Amazon Warehouse Workers are on Food Stamps (theintercept.com)
Many of Amazon's warehouse workers have to buy their groceries with food stamps through America's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, reports the Intercept.
In Arizona, new data suggests that one in three of the company's own employees depend on SNAP to put food on the table. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the figure appears to be around one in 10. Overall, of five states that responded to a public records request for a list of their top employers of SNAP recipients, Amazon cracked the top 20 in four.
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table... "The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."
In addition Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps, notes the article, adding that in 2017 Amazon received $1.2 billion in state and local subsidies, while effectively paying no federal income tax.
"The American people are financing Amazon's pursuit of an e-commerce monopoly every step of the way: first, with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements meant to lure fulfillment centers into town, and later with federal transfers to pay for warehouse workers' food."
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table... "The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."
In addition Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps, notes the article, adding that in 2017 Amazon received $1.2 billion in state and local subsidies, while effectively paying no federal income tax.
"The American people are financing Amazon's pursuit of an e-commerce monopoly every step of the way: first, with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements meant to lure fulfillment centers into town, and later with federal transfers to pay for warehouse workers' food."
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table...
Can we say the following: -
That folks on food stamps somehow easily find work at Amazon instead of the narrative that the [little] income at Amazon, forces them to employ food stamps?
That Amazon [probably] goes out of their way to employ those who would otherwise be unemployable; these coincidentally happening to be on food stamps?
That those on food stamps get some benefit working at Amazon in terms of other perks they may be getting?
Look, I have heard of the argument that in some jurisdictions, not earning enough qualifies one to get benefits that those who make more may not necessarily qualify for.
In all the above, I stand to be corrected.
You wouldn't have to seize anything. One or two well-publicized billionaire trips to the guillotine and the rest would start behaving better. It's possible that the most humane thing you could to do better the lives of the most people is executing a few billionaires. However, I'm pro-life and don't believe in the death penalty, so I think curb-stomping should suffice. We've tried the carrot, now it's time to try the stick.
It's like the broken window theory of law enforcement, except applied to plutocrats. If you let them get away with underpaying employees to increase their own wealth, the next thing you know they're creating private armies and destroying media outlets who report on their bullshit.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is one of the main arguments for the left pushing "Fight for $15." If you're working for minimum wage, then you qualify for food stamps and other government assistance, so the government is essentially subsidizing employers who pay minimum wage.
Here's the math: The federal minimum wage is $7.25. If you work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, that's $14,500 a year. The Amazon wage listed in the summary of $24,300 correlates with $11.68/hour for 40 hours/50 weeks. Of course, the Amazon hourly rate is probably lower, but with overtime depending on demand.
In this case I'd say the "system" is working reasonably well under the boundary conditions we've set. These people are working, but not making enough and using government subsidy to make ends meet.
I'd be way more concerned about headlines like "Warehouse workers quit, make more money on social programs" or "Warehouse workers dying of starvation".
Is it fair that they don't make a living wage? No. But this is how our economic system works, and there's a lot of money and bullets invested in maintaining it no matter what.
Why would it be better to take away their job???
It is not clear how much increases in the minimum wage actually "takes away jobs". Evidence is ... mixed.
A higher minimum wage encourages businesses to replace labor with automation, unskilled labor with more highly skilled labor, and to ship jobs overseas. But are these effects bigger than the increase in income? That isn't clear, and also depends on the conditions. A study of a small MW raise in New Jersey found negligible job losses. A very big increase in Puerto Rico devastated their economy, sending them into a spiral of unsustainable debt and emigration.
The Democrats and their supporters will NOT allow a law that requires E-verify. They would rather build a wall (not that a wall is happening either). This is why immigration debate is stalled. The Democrats don't want immigration laws enforced.