That it is not abnormal doesn't make it okay. Just because something is normal doesn't mean something should be normal. Further, people don't think it should be this way there and how it is elsewhere has no bearing on that fact. This is whataboutism.
The point is, if you don't have the context, you are operating from a position of ignorance. What if conditions do suck and are terribly miserable at Amazon's warehouses? But... what if, despite that, the conditions are actually better than typical warehouse jobs? In that case, by singling out Amazon, you are actually punishing them for having better warehouse conditions than anyone, and helping their competitors where the workers are worse off.
Context is absolutely needed. How can I possibly want a particular condition at Amazon if I don’t understand it. For example, is $18 too low? Is 8-10 hour manual labor days bad? I can’t say I’m against the working conditions unless I know what typical working conditions are. And if Amazon is the best of all possible conditions for unskilled warehouse work then me calling for change at Amazon is way less effective than for some other place where my attention will have more impact.
This idea of “any change is good” is dangerous because it ignores opportunity cost. An example is that it can actually be bad to raise awareness for a rare disease if it takes away donations from a common disease. It can cost lives and do harm because dollars become less effective.
Focusing on the wrong thing can be worse than apathy and it seems really weird that people can form opinions without data and facts. Especially in a world where PR bullshit can form such emotional reactions.
How is understanding someone’s needs trivial? There are so many factors that determine need. Many that I would never reveal to a stranger. Needs vary substantially just based on demographics. A 60 year old needs more than an 18 year old. A single parent with two kids needs less than two parents with two kids. A family of 8 needs more than a family of 3. A short person needs fewer calories than a tall person. Etc etc.
But I may be rare in my inability to understand people’s needs without any data. I don’t know much about warehouse workers. I need much more information than an astroturf ad on Instagram/new outlet tells me.
Right, that’s kind of the point of the thread. That is one side and not based on facts. It’s important to consider those communications with reality to assess what change should be made.
Only considering my needs as I say them without any further context will likely lead to inefficient decisions.
Without context, you can't even know how to help their conditions, if you wanted to.
If Amazon is a singularly bad warehouse employer, punishing them in some way (boycotts, etc) might be appropriate.
If Amazon is a singularly good warehouse employer, rewarding them with more business and good PR might be appropriate. It could incentivize the competition to follow suit and Amazon to raise its standards even further to stay ahead.
If Amazon is a typical warehouse employer, then I would find it counter productive to single out Amazon for punishment or reward, rather than the actual good/bad outliers among warehouse operators.
What you write is true, but leaves out the fact that taking down Amazon or putting restrictions on Amazon's warehouse operations can unintentionally make things worse for low-skilled workers if their other employment options are worse than working in an Amazon warehouse.
Even if the standards get raised across the warehouse industry, the restrictions might harm low-skilled workers more than it helps them. E.g., they might make it economically rational for Amazon to automate the jobs away. E.g., Amazon might be forced to pass on their higher costs to consumers, causing a transfer of spending from Amazon.com to brick-and-mortar outlets where the jobs for available to low-skilled workers pay even less than the eliminated jobs the Amazon warehouse did.
