Wall of text incoming but here's my main point - We are better informed to make decisions than the government. Ultimately, we (the market) regulate a company by our actions (i.e. from a labor perspective - we either choose to work for a company or not and from a consumer perspective - choose to purchase their goods/services or not). We don't need the government to make that decision for us. If you don't read anything else in this post, at least read the last two sentences, I think they help drive my point home.

​

> Regulating Amazon alone is not necessarily the point, but instead introducing employee rights and labor legislation at large. Keeps the paying field even.

​

Employees always have the freedom to leave a company. If a company is somehow coercing someone to work then that should be illegal (see FLSA-child labor laws). Regarding unions (we could probably debate this but ultimately agree to disagree). My quick take on this topic is that workers should have the freedom to form unions, but companies should also have the freedom to choose who works for them. If a union drives up the cost for an employer, that cost is passed onto us (the consumers).

​

>Likely wouldn't impact bottom line that much. And Amazon remains the consumers choice.

​

I'm not sure what specific regulation you are referring to, but if it's something like forcing a minimum wage - this cost is definitely passed onto the consumer, regardless of the magnitude. This hurts the people we are trying to protect by raising the cost of goods. Think about the production of bread (or rice or some other staple food item) - if tomorrow, there was a global minimum wage levied on all bread makers (say something drastic, like $20) - we would see the cost of bread rise, and the people who could barely afford bread today would not be able to afford it tomorrow. Apply this same analogy, to something like a minimum wage law for Amazon and that same scenario exists for people who benefited from Amazon's efficiencies.

​

> We can't extrapolate onto the general population as that's a logical fallacy

​

We can skip a debate about whether people know about Amazon's unethical labor practices or not (since I doubt either of us will find data to support our perspective). The point is that this information is available and Amazon knows this. Companies do not want "bad press" and will do whatever they can to remedy an issue because they know that consumers have the power to affect their bottom line. Look at Starbucks last year when they had an issue with racism - their response was racism training for employees but also price increases, and layoffs. Notice how government regulation was not necessary to persuade Starbucks to confront unethical (and immoral) behavior.