Fair enough.

> - Amazon has better wages and conditions than the industry average. Warehouse work is tough in general, Amazon isn't making it particularly hard and pays relatively well.

People working in Amazon warehouses often feel exploited for other reasons - such as the absurdly strict time keeping that doesn't often doesn't allow them enough time to get to a toilet, use it, and get back to work in the alloted time for a toilet break. This not how the industry universally works.

Further, Amazon has a monopoly on employment in this industry in many areas, so workers are not free to choose who to work for - they take the Amazon terms or starve.

Finally, even if Amazon is above the industry average, that doesn't mean that the industry average is all workers can hope for. They are well within their rights to demand much better, give how crucial they are to our way of life.

> - Unions aren't universally good. The reason we got to "defund police" is because cops are practically unfireable due to a strong union; and unions were at least part of the reason why GM lost so hard in front of Toyota and other competition.

Police unions are fundamentally different from worker's unions in some ways (because of police's virtual monoploy on the use of force). Also, even in common practice, police unions are highly aligned with their employer (the city/state authorities) on most items of interest to the general public, so they are part of the problem for those issues.

Even so, police unions are extremely beneficial to their members - probably much more so than an Amazon union could hope to be in the coming years.

Finally, if GM lost to Toyota because Toyota was willing and able to exploit their workers, then it is a failure of the US government to have protected GM than a failure of the unions. If the unions were simply sabotaging GM, then yes - they were short sighted and did more harm; future unions should learn from their mistakes, just as business owners learn from the mistakes of people who bankrupt their own companies. It doesn't mean the concept of unions is bad, just like Yahoo being run into the ground by an incompetent CEO doesn't mean we should get rid of CEOs.

> In general, societies create wealth through freer markets, then vote to spend that wealth on social policies and income redistribution. Which is perfectly fine, btw.

This only works if all people have an actual ability to control policy. In all studies done on this for the last 30-50 years in the USA it has been found that the lower ~50% of the population by income has essentially no say in government, at least on economic policies at the federal level. They put in the work, but have no ability to control how the wealth is allocated.

As such, even if society overall is prospering, it is often doing so at the expense of the well being of its poorer working class, which understandably is not ok with that. Unions are one of the more benign and constructive ways this can be changed. Historically, societies on this path have ended in bloody revolutions or fascist autocracy, both of which hopefully can be avoided.

I ridiculed your original post because of the implication I felt that it's somehow too soon for these changes. The lack of unions and the erosion of worker rights, and extreme inequality of the use of wealth are problems that have been around for 40 to 50 years. It is in fact very late for some efforts to improve things for the lower class. Perhaps some of the current crises could in fact have been avoided or softened if this had happened earlier.