That's a good point, but if i put myself in the shoes of one of Amazon's warehouse workers, i would probably weight not being injured more heavily than being more productive, so for instance if i had an opportunity to double my productivity at the cost of doubling my likelihood of injury, i'd choose to be less productive if that decision were up to me. However I'd imagine corporate would look at it differently, where injuries are liabilities for the company but productivity is the end goal, so a situation that increases employee productivity proportionately greater than it increases probability of injury might be looked upon more favorably. I am trying to come across as neutral as I can here but bringing it back to the previous commenters' discussion on "the good of the world", I'm finding it hard to defend the injuries/item picked metric here