> they need to put food on the table and have few other options.
how does that make any sense? how are people being taken advantage of when they "have few other options", are "desperate for work", and "need to put food on the table"? amazon should pay less and make the job easier? then theyd just be another of the bad options.
so, your argument is amazon simply has an obligation to pay workers more (after theyre already a good option) because... why?
When your workforce consists of people taking the only job they can find, you worsen working conditions until just above where people would rather starve than work for you.
The issue isn't pay, it's employment practices and on-the-job pressures. There are very believable stories out there of the working conditions.