I don't see how it's that similar. Employees getting a new job is often very difficult, so would create a lot of difficulty for a lot of people. Whereas Amazon raising their prices by a few cents shouldn't be much work.

It's not about the difficulty of raising prices, it's about the impact to the bottom line profit to shareholders when a few cents is extrapolated over a billion transactions.

The percent impact would be negligible, I expect lower than daily fluctuation. Anyway, the law isn't just designed to protect shareholders, it's designed to protect everyone.

If someone can make money by fraud, that money is not justification to allow fraud. The US economy relies on dependable contacts.

> Anyway, the law isn't just designed to protect shareholders,

Which law? "The Law" as an ideal, is impartial. That's irrelevant. In practice, applied law (and the cousin enforced law) leads to biased results, favoring the wealthy and the status quo while remaining "impartial".

Ok, then "the law shouldn't be just designed".

We shouldn't let a defeatist attitude discourage attempts at improvement.

Nor should we pretend "the law" is perfect in application and outcome...or why would anyone try to improve it?

Percent impact is non-negligible when you consider the impatience of the average consumer.

I was thinking Amazon would raise prices slightly, not make stuff slower.

Damn, yeah, I guess these guys should really be asking their new employer if they'll be subject to wage theft before they get hired.

Or just a̶s̶s̶u̶m̶e̶ be vigilant about it, corporations are amoral profit machines and have no incentive to care about replaceable workers.

I have no incentive to care about the grocery store I frequent, but it is still illegal for me to steal from them and I can expect to be held accountable by the government in the event that I do steal from them.

I'm very libertarian- but at the end of the day I will always support the government authority to punish theft. And a failure to pay employees the agreed upon rate is theft.

You're neglecting to consider that you have to be caught.

Amazon was just being tried in court.

This isnt about being caught- the evidence is clear as day and was presented in court.

This is about a failure of our legal system to protect basic rights of a laborer to be paid the agreed upon rate.

He was talking about their next job ...

There's a huge imbalance of power between the company and an individual worker. So it's "kind of" not the same at all.

Why are people so quick to defend the powerful?

This is the site of a tech investment company. Its full of the rich and powerful who are protecting themselves.

Aspiring rich and powerful. Most people here (myself very much included) remain part of the precariat, and the fangs-out defense of the rich and powerful is most frequently done by those who, in the end, may manage to not lose but likely will not win.

John Steinbeck wasn't wrong.

Human beings are tribal creatures, not individualists.

As such, we have leaders and followers.

By definition of leaders and followers, most people will be followers, whether for genetic or environmental reasons.

Followers will always support those who are leaders. In our current society, that would mean the powerful.

If you don't believe me, look at behavioral sciences. Most people will shock someone to death just because an authority said so (yes the Millgram experiments were biased, but the results aren't completely invalidated by that)

If Amazon sends you a different product, or charges your credit card more than the claimed price, do you just simply find another retailer, or do you demand a refund?

let's head over to the job tree, what sort of bullshit dropping to the ground today?