Then what?

To me it would indicate that the motivation behind proposing jobs for homeless, which is usually a barrier to other employers, would be a benevolent one.

They basically said they will not bias against employment based on your housing situation. All things being equal, this is a good thing.

The reason Amazon hires any worker, homeless or not, is to extract a profit from their work. It's entirely possible that it offers the exact same conditions as other workers, but to describe it as benevolence is naive at best.

Amazon has a huge surge in orders during the christmas period, and it struggles to find enough workers to keep up with demand. This article makes it clear that this was a scheme aimed at coping with the seasonal surge. It has nothing to do with Amazon wanting to see homeless people better off.

The article is only arguing that Amazon's part time job though wasn't as life-changing as intentioned. It was only seasonal (which they knew) and the hours didn't end up helping the staff. Now you can argue that Amazon doesn't care because it didn't accommodate the homeless workers with day jobs instead of night jobs.

If the primary motivation was to help the seasonal employees, the program might have looked significantly different.

Amazon is being shown in a very bad light in this article, but it seems fair to say that both Amazon and the seasonal employees went into this arrangement with unrealistic expectations.

HOWEVER, One side clearly has much more power than the other, and when you wield enormous power and fail to provide help that is clearly needed and you are clearly capable of providing, I think it is easy to predict that you will not come out looking good.

You have to wonder whether Amazon knew things could turn out this way when they approached the YWCA.

This arguments are getting ridiculous. Why is it always the employers exploiting the employees? Why not the other way round? The way I see it, if the people could generate more value self-employed, they would do it! The only reason they take jobs is because they can, gasp, exploit the employer by producing more value than they would otherwise, and getting paid more!

In a free society, exploitation goes both ways!

Nah. The "Losers" in MacLeod's hierarchy are explicitly choosing to leave extractable value on the table (this being the thing they're "losing") in exchange for being allowed to slack. Most people do not have the willpower to be entrepreneurs; in fact, much the opposite—most people want a job that requires as little willpower of them as possible.

Of course, he also said:

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged."

I would just like to take a moment to wonder at the shitness of our world where the best we can do for those who have been deprived of everything is to ask them to break their backs so the extravagantly wealthy can make a bit more money.

That's a very hostile way to describe working a warehouse job.

Offering someone a job is not asking them to break their back. Working for an employer has nothing to do with the extravagantly wealthy. All companies need employees, and companies are valuable because they serve their customers. You could equally say "break their back so random Internet consumers get their products", or "Burger King / WalMart employees break their backs so you get a cheap cheeseburger / grocery product".

Working a job tends to make people better off, and offering someone a job they didn't have before is giving them a new option. We can wish for a world where even better jobs were available, but wishing doesn't make it so. It's strictly better for the homeless to have one more job opportunity, than one fewer.

You can wish there were even better opportunities, but are you prepared to provide them yourself? Or is this your position: "I'm not going to do anything about it myself, but I'm going to criticize those who do something positive, even if it's just providing a low value opportunity. Someone should provide a better opportunity than that, but I won't be the one to do it."

By demonizing companies that offer jobs to poor people or the homeless, you're committing the fallacy called the Copenhagen Interpreation of Ethics. http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...

You're very right about this, it was wrong of me to describe the purpose of the operation as being that of making someone rich. The purpose is to maximise profits for the employer – which can lead to extreme wealth or poverty, depending on your success. Besides, in order to appreciate how shit a situation is for someone it is irrelevant to know whether someone else is profiting from it. So thanks for pointing that out.

> Working a job tends to make people better off [...] It's strictly better for the homeless to have one more job opportunity, than one fewer.

I think this is wishful thinking. The article actually points out that this is not true: getting this job actually made the situation worse for a lot of them.

> but are you prepared to provide them yourself?

As a pauper myself, I am not. I don't have the resources to do so.

> to criticize those who do something positive

As I tried to show before, good intentions was not what motivated Amazon to offer jobs to these people. Also, leaving someone worse off than before is not what I would call a positive outcome. So this cannot be my position.

> By demonizing companies that offer jobs to poor people or the homeless,

I definitely did not mean to demonise Amazon. I pointed out in my last comment that this was a feature of our world, not a feature of a particular company. That's the saddest thing of this whole story: Amazon acted completely rationally, and it's easy to see how it almost had no choice but to use up these homeless people and then throw them away. Not because it's evil, but because that's what's required of it as a company. If Amazon stops churning out profits, it won't be a company for much longer.

> you're committing the fallacy called the Copenhagen Interpreation of Ethics.

Nitpick: what you call the Copenhagen Interpreation of Ethics is not a fallacy, there's no logic involved here since it relates to people's moral values. It's a phenomenon at best. But once again, the point was not to say that Amazon is evil; the point is to say this world is broken.

I would say they're in such need as they would take any job offered them, misery notwithstanding, but you're 80% with me yes.

> I would just like to take a moment to wonder at the shitness of our world where the best we can do for those who have been deprived of everything is to ask them to break their backs so the extravagantly wealthy can make a bit more money.

I kind of agree with you here. I don't think Bezos is up in his office masturbating vigorously to camera footage of homeless people walking into Amazon warehouses to work. He's not hiring them because he wants to make money, in all likelihood most of them will need a fair bit more training than regular blue collar workers who are between jobs or people looking to earn some extra money, and I'm also willing to bet that a homeless person would be fairly less reliable in terms of showing up for their shifts on time if only for the fact that they literally have nothing including a car. Amazon probably does want to help, and they want to enough that they're willing to overlook the problems that come with hiring homeless people.

Now we can argue all day about how Amazon could afford to put those people in 5 star hotels for the entire Christmas season and it probably wouldn't hurt them, but that's not the point. They're a company, not a charity. They don't need to hire these people at all if they don't want to (and if they didn't, no one would even be arguing about this in the first place) so forgive me if I'm not willing to throw them under the bus for at least trying to help.

It's not Amazon I want to throw under the bus. They did what any rational player would do in their situation. What I want to throw under the bus is the situation itself, aka, how we organise our world.