because small companies can't get away with paying poverty wages. amazon jobs are ubiquitous and well-known enough that people treat it as a fallback. if you can't find a better job, you go work in the amazon warehouse or as a wal-mart cashier, because they're always hiring.

companies that don't operate on the same scale aren't constantly hiring, so they can't get the same benefit of being the fallback option for people and have to offer wages that are high enough to actually attract employees.

> amazon jobs are ubiquitous and well-known enough that people treat it as a fallback. if you can't find a better job, you go work in the amazon warehouse or as a wal-mart cashier, because they're always hiring.

I agree that larger companies are better capitalized and therefore can better withstand economic shocks than smaller companies, but how does that mean that foodstamps "prevents competition"? Foodstamps aren't tied to a specific employer, so it doesn't favor large companies over smaller one, because employees can continue to get benefits even after switching jobs.

Of course small businesses can always pay poverty wages or constantly hire. Amazon actually actively advocates for more than doubling the minimum wage because it would be beneficial for them.

https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/economy/15-minimum-wage

Is this really? If foodstamps were to suddenly disappear, would Amazon increase their wages? I doubt it. In fact, there would be _more_ desperate people scrambling for some paying jobs, which would depress wages further. Right?

Why can't smaller companies get away with paying poverty wages? I don't quite see the connection.

Poverty wages comes with the cost of constantly hiring, and hiring is a relatively expensive thing to do, mostly in terms of time, unless you're big enough to make it a fixed cost (eg an internal team and a job marketing budget).