Many people believe it shouldn't be possible to be employed full time and still require food stamps -- that the minimum legal wage should be a living wage that covers the average price of food and rent in that area, at least.

So, it follows that they would only believe it laudable to employ the poor if you're employing them to a standard that allows them to survive.

The issue is that if Business A and Individual B are paying taxes, why should those taxes be used to increase Business C's profit margin by subsidizing their employees? Should this not be the responsibility of Business C?

> It could be framed to laud them for employing so many who are poor

Oh yes, so good of Jeff to become the worlds richest man by exploiting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Such genorisity so I can get ping pong balls in 2 days

Arguments like this are naive and pointless. Bezos could dump half his Amazon shares and give that as bonuses to all Amazon warehouse workers. How long would that last until you share the same complaint again? It's a serious question. And if Bezos did that, what would it do to Amazon's share value with shares flooding the market? Would Amazon have to layoff these workers? They go back to food stamps and no jobs, no?

I am not saying the current situation is ideal. I am saying the system is working exactly as intended. Welcome to capitalism. You can't be complicit with all the aspects and security you get personally but then complain when others are reaping the same benefit, just at a 1000x scale.

It was bad when Walmart did it; it's still bad when Amazon does it.