[mucle6]

Everyone else in this thread frustrates me, but I understand it. Compassion is ingrained in us, while free market economics is not.

Nobody here is really thinking through what happens if they are successful at boycotting and destroying Amazon. What would they say to these people they're supposedly helping?

"I got you laid off! You don't have to work here anymore! You're free! Maybe you can't feed your family now but at least you can move your lips while you drive!"

[egypturnash]

Success in a boycott is not necessarily destroying Amazon. Success is making this decision cause enough financial pain to Amazon that they reverse it, and the next time some Frederick Taylor wannabe proposes something terrible along the same lines, everyone else reminds him of how much it hurt when they tried to stop the delivery drivers from singing along to music. Success is this weakening Amazon enough for their low-wage workers to unionize and demand representation on the board of directors and a bigger share of the profits.

[mucle6]

If the workers want better conditions they can leave. If all options are below what we would consider moral then we should change laws. The solution to a problem in a free market is not inside of one company.

[tway_GdBRwW]

I agree that boycotting Amazon is not the answer, but government action might be. And government action only happens if the politicians think enough of their constituency thinks something is a problem.

[lazyasciiart]

This is silly, because you are imagining that Amazon could disappear with no other change in society.