Bernie Sanders gives credit to the identified wage Amazon pays people—but is it that significant?

“Sen. Bernie Sanders has been one of Amazon.com Inc.’s staunchest critics. That’s why a rare instance of praise from the Vermont senator and 2016 presidential candidate is notable, following the U.S.’s second largest employer’s announcement on Tuesday that it is raising the minimum wage for all U.S. workers to $15 an hour:

‘What Mr. Bezos has done today is not only enormously important for Amazon’s hundreds of thousands of employees, it could well be, and I think it will be, a shot heard around the world.’

‘Today, I want to give credit where credit is due,’ Sanders said following Amazon’s announcement.

Back in early September, Sanders rolled out legislation that would tax corporations for the federal benefits their employees receive, named Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies, and nicknamed the BEZOS Act, which was a barely veiled reference to Amazon’s  multibillionaire CEO Jeff Bezos, whom the 77-year-old senator had accused of not paying his workers a living wage.”

The Amazon wage may or may not be significant dependent upon all of the other variables such as but not limited to Amazon tax treatment and the likely wages that the pool of workers at Amazon would have earned had they not worked for Amazon. What percentage of these wage earners additionally get subsidies and what percentage of the wage paid can be indirectly or directly traced to preferential treatment Amazon may get just to have it choose to locate near a particular city? Certainly hourly minimum wage is one barometer of fair compensation but does it fairly tell the tale or when pertinent variables are examined does it seem, over time especially, like it is telling a fairy tale?