If workers need government aid to make basic ends meet, it is the employer, not the employee, that is on welfare, subsidized by taxpayers and government borrowing.
Perhaps. But a person with only one kid? Doing a job that the company needs to have done, even if no great skill is required? If that person doesn't make enough for food and rent, then I repeat, it is the company that is on welfare.
If you work the lowest paid job at Amazon 40+ hours per week, you literally cannot qualify for government benefits unless you have like 3+ kids and you're a single parent.
A person with no skills wouldn't be able to support themselves regardless of the number of kids.
And I suppose that's ultimately the problem: through a combination of technological advances, which automate much unskilled labor, and a broken incentive structure in many social welfare programs, which disincentivize investment in human capital (because of the "benefit cliff"), a larger and larger underclass of unemployable[0] people grows.
[0]: meaning, the economic value of their labor output is less than the minimum cost to employ them.
You came up with an extreme example that virtually never happens as a counterpoint to something that is ubiquitous in modern life. This behavior is why people don't like this forum.
why are you blaming amazon for this and not everyone else, including you, for not hiring these workers for a higher wage?
if you or anyone else can get marginal productivity from these workers for more than amazon is paying then just go and do it, or do you have some bias against hiring people on welfare?
