We can argue until we're blue in the face about whose fault it is and who should be responsible for ensuring workers are paid a livable wage, but I would hope that we can all agree on this:

If you work full-time and you do a good job, then you should earn a wage that you can live on.

The question is, "what is a living wage?" The goal posts keep shifting...which doesn't help the case for this. If it were just "you can afford rent and food" that would be fine, I suppose...but it has now extended to so many other things that I wouldn't really call necessities.

What do you consider living to be?

Should Amazon workers only barely be able to afford rent and food. Should they have $0 left over after rent+groceries? $1? What amount is reasonable, vs what amount becomes excessive? What if they have a child? Or an elderly parent? Or student loans?

> but it has now extended to so many other things that I wouldn't really call necessities.

What ridiculous lavish spending do you think Amazon warehouse workers are capable of buying with their (on average ~$12/hr) wages?

The general argument is that a living wage should cover life. All people are entitled to enough money that they can pay for rent, pay for food, pay for healthcare, pay for basic transportation, and have some amount of discretionary money to spend anyway they want (like say, raising a family, or continuing their education, or having a hobby, or volunteering for a cause their passionate about, or whatever)

I consider it everything up to the level of participation in democratic politics and civil society. Different people may put different needs and functions above or below their line of demarcation.

  breathable air
  drinkable water
  nutritious food
  safe shelter
  quiet and dark sleeping area
  secure property storage
  equal access to the commons
  basic education
  job skills education
  scientific/analytic education
  access to communication
  access to markets
  personal mobility
  medical care
  social contact
  family formation
  social organization
  political influence
   .------------------------------
  <  this is where I draw my line
   '------------------------------
  mercantile education
  philosophical education
  luxury goods
  psychological individuation
  independent exploration or introspection
  artistic and aesthetic pursuits
  finding a meaning in life
  spiritual enlightenment
  Veblen goods

Pretty reasonable list.

But isn't he paying market wages for them? Similar to what the other companies are paying them.

Yes and presumably other companies should also pay them more but I suppose the blame is more focused on Amazon/Bezos because he is the richest person in the world and this article is about him.

Yeah, it does. But Bezos/Amazon is simply taking advantage of the laws and the political system (just like many corporations pay so little tax). The real solution is to raise the minimum wage, plug tax loopholes etc and not expect billionaires to play fair, out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's wrong but how is it the company's fault? It is the government's responsibility to set a minimum wage. How come the blame doesn't fall on the policy makers and lobbyists?

It does. You're left with little recourse when policy makers and lobbyists are apathetic or actually working against the public good (by refusing to raise the minimum wage, which hasn't increased in some places for over a decade, and should be indexed to inflation).

Can you not assign blame to someone abusing a broken system? Surely you can. They are still abusing the system.

What's even the point of government services then?

If I use roads or public parks, or my social security, does that mean that my employer never paid me enough, then?

And we already have a concept that covers this. It is called the minimum wage. It makes no sense to talk about government services that people are using when you should instead just raise the minimum wage.

Flip it around.

These people needed government support, and Bezos is giving them a job, so now they need less government support than they did before. Bezos is helping to give money to people who would have otherwise been totally on welfare.

Turn it around again, Amazon has underrun the competition that was paying living wages before and destroyed the jobs those people had before, by not paying taxes.

Their competitors were not paying "living" wages. Brick and mortar retail, especially mom&pop stores, were notorious for paying low wages.

Destroying jobs is a good thing. It means that Amazon can pass on the savings to consumers. I know that Amazon is disliked in Seattle & the bay area, but if you go around the rest of the country, people love amazon.

Why isn't 'living wage' != 'minimum wage'

Democracy is not working? Whats the alternative.