> No, I still assert government subsidies to people employed below a living wage are corporate subsidies.
This is the first result with I look up the definition of a subsidy:
> A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
You never disagreed with the parent comment that if welfare got pulled, Amazon wages would stay just as low. In fact, states or countries with less welfare tend to have lower wages, so if it's the opposite of a subsidy for Amazon. Therefore, welfare isn't a corporate subsidy. QED.
The vast majority of the world can and does live with off of less than $17/hour and healthcare benefits, which is what Amazon pays for entry level roles these days. Even in the US, that's enough for a single person without children. If Amazon only hired only these people, would that relieve their burden of having to pay a "living wage" to people?
This is the first result with I look up the definition of a subsidy:
> A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
You never disagreed with the parent comment that if welfare got pulled, Amazon wages would stay just as low. In fact, states or countries with less welfare tend to have lower wages, so if it's the opposite of a subsidy for Amazon. Therefore, welfare isn't a corporate subsidy. QED.
The vast majority of the world can and does live with off of less than $17/hour and healthcare benefits, which is what Amazon pays for entry level roles these days. Even in the US, that's enough for a single person without children. If Amazon only hired only these people, would that relieve their burden of having to pay a "living wage" to people?