Did I say economical meant good? No, I said it's up to the government to change the requirements if it's decided that a certain pay is required to survive, and market forces won't lead to that amount.
Your other two examples are quite the jump though, and not really worth commenting on.
I agree with this. Think about if we had no regulation or social support. Jeff Bezos is sitting there with 100s of thousands of times the wealth of his workers near starving. He would not be able to have that much wealth as there would be a revolt and he would be in danger. The fact that we subsidize the poor and keep order as a society is helping him to be able to live as an outrageously rich person in relative safety. So the inequity has to be brought down to a level where we don't have to subsidize the people making him outrageously wealthy while they have enough to get by.
I could be wrong, but I think ApolloFortyNine was simply pointing out the way it is, not necessarily claiming that it's how it should be.
Amazon paid so little because they could. Amazon just wants profit. If people want Amazon to pay more because their wage is not a living wage, they should take it up with the government to increase minimum wage.
Your other two examples are quite the jump though, and not really worth commenting on.