> no growth + less revenue

I'd argue it's more like *slower growth, which should be acceptable, especially at Amazon's size.

Also, I'd in fact argue that making sure your employees have time to go pee wont significantly hurt your bottom line. At most you might need to hire a few few more people. Amazon operates at numbers big enough that this shouldn't be a considerable expense.

My comment you replied to was a direct response, not in the context of the original conversation.

> I'd argue it's more like *slower growth

Exactly my point, just in a different context. I was speaking on a much smaller scale than Amazon as an example.

If you own a restaurant, and can open a second location and hire more people, you are reinvesting and expanding and bringing in more revenue, which you can reinvest to open more locations. If you pay your current employees more instead, then you aren't opening that new location, and there is no growth (or much smaller growth if your employees do a better job, which would be incremental compared to opening a second location), but people are happier and less taken advantage of.

It's a fine line to walk, and very rarely do companies get it right. Costco is an example of a company that does get it right. There are, unfortunately, far more examples of companies that don't.

The person that replied to me asked for evidence of how reinvestment causes slower growth than paying people more. That side conversation had nothing to do with Amazon.

> Also, I'd in fact argue that making sure your employees have time to go pee wont significantly hurt your bottom line

No one is arguing that. In fact, I agree with it.