9 ms·
Amazon to Create 100,000 New Jobs in U.S. In Next 18 Months
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- anon987 10y agoDon't waste your time, it's PR bullshit: "“It’s a very powerful headline, and the timing certainly makes Trump look good,” The staffing up isn’t particularly surprising for a company moving into multiple categories from groceries, hardware and video to fashion and cloud services. But the move could appease Trump, who tangled with Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos during the election campaign.
- knowaveragejoe 10y agoWhat a shameful and frankly frightening state of affairs we're in when this is the case. Why does the party of small government get a pass on this? Any self-described republican with even the vaguest interest in free markets should see a myriad of problems with the incoming administration. I hope they can actually grow some balls, stick to their guns and shut this travesty down before it really gets going.
- TheGirondin 10y agoWhat does this have to do small government?
- Florin_Andrei 10y agoYes, but first they would have to let go of the utterly divorced from reality bullshit that has become their whole political dogma. Good luck with that.
- matthewaveryusa 10y agoLook, regardless of your political inclinations you can't blankly hate everything Trump does. I get it, it's cognitive dissonance, but give credit where it's do. One company committing to 100k U.S jobs is huge. Looking at the numbers, that alone will contribute to 2.5-5% of job growth in the US (assuming job growth is btween 100-200k/month.) Is it a political move? How couldn't it be? Is it somthing to lambaste about? No, it's basic job creation in the US, something we really need to sustain the America us cosmopolitans have forgotten about.
- cmdrfred 10y agoI agree to be logically consistent you'd also have to make the same argument about Obama's unemployment numbers. Most of the growth lately has been in relatively low paying jobs.
- srtjstjsj 10y agoCredit for what, to whom? First, it's a pledge not a commitment, and second it's a statement about Amazon's continuation of 20 years of steady growth. This isn't "insourcing" or "onshoring" ? Trump did this? How? When you consider the wage of Amazon warehouse workers, it's a lot less than 2-5% of wage growth, which is what matters.
- basch 10y ago
- madenine 10y agoIts safe to assume that anything that happened since the election will be claimed by Trump. Regardless of whether he or his administration have the slightest thing to do with it. All jobs created in the next 4 years will be because of Trump, and all jobs lost will be because of Clinton/Bush/Obama.
- choko 10y agoIt's safe to assume because it's SOP for politicians. You aren't saying anything that hasn't been true of any incoming president in my lifetime. Hell, it's often true in the private sector during a management change.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago10 million net jobs were created during the Obama administration. How many of those did he tweet about?
- spoiledtechie 10y agoMore than 80% of those were low skills service jobs. The jobs Trump is creating and the factories he saved are high skilled high paying jobs.
- aaronbrethorst 10y agoAre you referring to Carrier, where some of the 1,100 jobs supposedly saved were never moving to Mexico? They're going to invest some of the money they're getting from the government into automation to further replace human workers. Or Ford, which was never moving the jobs in question out of the country. Or something else?
- MisterBastahrd 10y agoPresidents don't create jobs or lose them. The demands of the economy do that. Presidents can influence the economy, but they also have Congress and the Fed to deal with.
- notyourwork 10y agoYou missed one quote at the very end. Without it, the above reads like a quote with your reply to it. However, the last sentence was a quote from the article too.
- Fricken 10y agoIt's a good day to be a billionaire. Trump is totally open to providing incentives and handouts to anyone who makes him look good. For better or worse, the doors to corporatism are open. How far we go down that path remains to be seen.
- fludlight 10y ago90% of these jobs will be at or very close to minimum wage. The company might also figure out a clever way to use independent contractors so they are paid less than minimum wage.
- rayvd 10y agoAnd then they'll send out their slave raiding parties to compel people to work for them.
- chedabob 10y ago> independent contractors so they are paid less than minimum wage. That is exactly what they do in the UK. Deliveries are outsourced to other companies (but still under the Amazon Delivery Network brand). Those companies then hire people as contractors, pay them close to minimum wage, but use every trick possible to ensure they see as little of that as possible (i.e. pay reductions when aggressive delivery targets are not met, charging extortionate rates for vehicle hire and insurance). http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/amazon-inside-out http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/amazon-insi...
- leeoniya 10y agoi was just about to say this. headline can also be "Amazon plans to hire 100,000 below minimum wage workers in light of relaxed labor laws"
- __abc 10y agoFor a lot of people, this will be an amazing opportunity and dramatically improve their life. Not saying it couldn't be better, or the timing isn't suspect in regards to maximizing PR, but don't forget the humans this will positively impact.
- ktsmith 10y agoHow so? Many of these workers will likely be coming from similar jobs in the retail space where Amazon's increased presence is simply displacing them. When workers are paid at or below the minimum wage they often have to rely on government subsidies to make ends meet. The article even points some of this out.
- nepotism2016 10y agoMight as well rename the company "Trump" - BTW "Amazon Just Got Slapped With a $1 Million Fine For Misleading Pricing"
- eva1984 10y agoIn their warehouse? Well, a job is a job, I guess.
- jimmytidey 10y agoA job is a job, but a good job is better than a bad one. A bad job with no prospects of turning into anything else, is pretty close to as bad as unemployment to my mind.
- __abc 10y agoI think it's easy for us (most likely anybody readying HN) to not understand how impactful this could be to someone's family/life. WE get to be selective of "does this job help my career trajectory" but not everyone. This MAY be life changing for those 100,000 individuals.
- SAI_Peregrinus 10y agoIt all comes down to the difference between a job and a career.
- __abc 10y agoLet us not forget not everyone has the luxury of picking between the two.
- astrodust 10y agoThere are jobs so bad that being unemployed is an improvement because at least then you have time to find something better. Too many people are stuck in the trap of working for a terrible employer that beats them down psychologically, treats them like dirt, and forces them to jump through endless hoops just to keep their crappy job.
- refurb 10y agoWow. Believe it or not, everyone doesn't work in Silicon Valley coding new apps.
- aero142 10y agoHow to PR. 1) Identify large trends or the goals of powerful people. 2) Release feed prewritten BS to media that describes what you already planned to do in terms that aligns it with the above goals. 3) Profit(or don't get in a pissing match with our appearance above all else President Elect)
- zitterbewegung 10y agoObligatory link to PG on public relations. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- rdslw 10y ago4) forget to mention that your definition of 'create job' is 'take it from some other business which must fire a person and move this position to (amazon)'
- antisthenes 10y ago"Amazon to get rid of 100,000 warehouse workers due to automation by 2020" just doesn't have the same ring to it!
- choward 10y agoYep. Once I read the first sentence I knew I was reading bs: "Amazon.com Inc. revealed plans to hire more than 100,000 people in the U.S. in the next 18 months, grabbing the spotlight as President-elect Donald Trump pushes companies to employ more Americans." What the heck does this have to do with Donald Trump?
- messick 10y agoThey are just trying to get ahead of Trump taking credit for the new jobs, like he has done repeatedly since he was elected. Edit: Haha, never mind, looks like the Trump Administration is already taking credit: "The announcement was made after the president-elect met with heads of several other tech companies and urge them to keep their jobs and production inside the United States," Sean Spicer, the incoming press secretary, said on a call with media outlets Thursday. "The president-elect was pleased to have played a role in that decision by Amazon." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12/amazon-to-create-more-than-100-000-new-jobs-in-u-s-in-18-months https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12/amazon-to...
- jimmytidey 10y agoIn additional to PR bullshit... If you make enough jobs the Fed will induce a recession: https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company (an article I can imagine quoting extensively from now on...) You can make a company bigger and more prosperous by employing more people, theoretically, forever. A country doesn't work like that - but Trump probably thinks it does. Even if this were true, companies creating more jobs wouldn't necessarily be a good idea.
- DenisM 10y agoIt's an interesting article, thanks for sharing. I feel the jobs argument is outdated. As of right now the fed is unable to induce inflation despite huge amounts money pumped into the market. In other words the fed lost its ability to control employment. It also ignores the productivity gains from increased demands of bigger markets created by free trade. Yes, productivity gains destroy jobs, which is the opposite of what the globalists like to say. However this is essentiallly a Luddite argument. Had we stuck with it we would still live in an agrarian society. Reducing costs stemming from increased productivity affords more expendable income, creating new markets and new jobs in them. So free trade has the effect of promoting productivity, which I argue is the same as scientific and technological progress of our civilization.
- matthewbauer 10y ago> I feel the jobs argument is outdated. As of right now the fed is unable to induce inflation despite huge amounts money pumped into the market. In other words the fed lost its ability to control employment. That was probably true 2-6 years ago but since then the Fed has raised rates in Dec 2015[1], Dec 2016[2] and shows signs of raising them again (meaning that inflationary policies are doing something). The "liquidity trap" is mostly over. > It also ignores the productivity gains from increased demands of bigger markets created by free trade. How can an individual gain productivity from increased trade? Without increased education or new technologies, individual productivity (and in aggregate, world productivity) will not be affected by changes in trade policy. [1]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151216a.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/201... [2]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20161214a.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/201...
- ilamont 10y agoOne other issue bubbling behind the scenes is Bezos wants Amazon businesses to have a bigger footprint in China. He brought it up at the "Tech Summit" with Trump last month (1): Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was apparently very voluble, and aimed many of his points at how U.S. companies had a hard time succeeding in China, and what the government could do about it. Considering Trump has threatened to upend Sino-U.S. relations over the Taiwan issue, the answer may be, not so much. 1. http://www.recode.net/2016/12/15/13976806/immigration-maternity-leave-grid-software-president-trump-tech-meeting http://www.recode.net/2016/12/15/13976806/immigration-matern...
- notyourwork 10y agoI think part of the question is how much leverage does the US have. It feels to me that 10+ years ago the United states had a lot more leverage in the world to push things in their favor. Today it feels opposite that the US is losing that leverage and China doesn't really care. Perhaps I am wrong.
- harryh 10y agoAll other things being equal, a country's GDP is probably a good 1st order estimate of its influence in the world. Over the past several decades China's GDP has been increasing at a faster rate than the US so your feeling is probably correct. Relatively speaking China's influence has been rising and the US's has been falling. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It mostly means that in terms of GDP per capita China has been catching up which means many millions being lifted out of poverty.
- stevefeinstein 10y agoThe article doesn't even mention what kind go jobs they are. For all I know they could be associates who sell things using amazon's infrastructure. Or low paying high stress warehouse picker jobs. But those are increasingly being automated away.
- losteverything 10y agoDoes anyone know how Z seeks applicants? What & where & who hires for Z?
- general_ai 10y agoSo Jack Ma's visit to the Trump tower had a swift and predictable effect. Next up: Washington Compost will stop pooping on Trump at every opportunity. Bezos is, above everything else, a pragmatist.
- serge2k 10y ago> Washington Compost will stop pooping on Trump at every opportunity So stop reporting the things he actually says and does then?
- general_ai 10y agoNo, those it'll probably still report (although I don't know, Jeff could forbid it: it's his personal blog, he will print what he wants). It'll just stop taking things out of context and manufacturing outrage to generate clicks.
- almonj 10y agoIncredibly great news.
- sorenbs 10y agoIt seems to me that discussions of "job creation" often neglects to account for what these jobs replace. Amazon is master of operational efficiency. It's very likely that Amazon hiring 100K new people will lead to other companies laying off a total significantly greater than that. This is progress and should be celebrated for sure, but first we need to acknowledge this fact.
- exclusiv 10y agoI listened to an interesting podcast recently about the wars between Kansas and Missouri near the state line. They'd offer incentives and try to lure companies with tax breaks. Many companies would move, often several times back and forth. Anyway, the states would tout "new jobs" when they won but wouldn't talk about the ones they lost. The jobs weren't new at all either. Turns out that all the effort both states put in basically came out to a wash so both states were trying to setup a truce to avoid poaching and having to keep offering incentives.
- danyfs 10y agoThat's a good news!!! Amazon offers high-quality jobs.
- DoodleBuggy 10y agoWere these 100,000 new jobs not previously planned?
- seertaak 10y agoJeff Bezos is a master. The game he's playing is "talk, talk, fight, fight". On the one hand, his public utterances and announcements signal a detente viz-a-vis Trump. On the other hand, he continues to direct WaPo's attacks against Trump. Those saying this is not politics fail to realize that companies that reach a certain threshold size have no choice but to play politics. If they don't, avaricious politicians will take the politics to them. This is the lesson Google learned from Microsoft, and Bezos didn't fail to learn it.
- sean_patel 10y agoIt could also be that Bezos is making a calculated play for a 2020 or 2024 run for President, now that Fuckface Von Clownstick has proved that a Businessman with no Political experience can Win American Elections.
- sctb 10y agoPlease stop posting like this and instead comment civilly and substantively. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- technofiend 10y agoSo I'll put you down as a no for the Very Special Christmas at the Whitehouse Pay-Per-View event this December? I hear the Kardashians and Beyonce will be there!
- sean_patel 10y agoCorrect. A No from me, because Bruce Jenner and Kanye turned down your invite.
- toor2 10y agoCaitlyn Jenner
- mars4rp 10y agohow many jobs it destroys?
- pchristensen 10y agoThe article is making it sound like Amazon is doing this b/c of Trump. Like Amazon was tired of growing, but got a second wind after the election This part also seemed off: "What’s more, the hiring spree could do less to help the U.S. economy than is immediately apparent. Research groups have argued that the company kills more jobs than it creates because it has disrupted the traditional retail industry." If Amazon getting into groceries and same-day delivery fuels a lot of the hiring growth, you're not killing mom and pops, you're competing w/Wal-Mart and Target. And I have to imagine that an Amazon warehouse and a bunch of delivery drivers is more jobs than a big-box.
- petra 10y agoBesides the grocery and the same-day delivery markets, Amazon is also getting stronger in apparel(less jobs), B2B(less jobs), various logistical services(less jobs ), restaurant delivery(which will probably go towards very affordable tasty meals made in commercial kitchens, very efficienctly. Could kill a lot of restaurant jobs, but maybe demand will be so large, and it will replace some dinners , to create many jobs). Also , there's the question whether they'll find a formula to incentivize more people to use their parcel lockers(less jobs).
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago>And I have to imagine that an Amazon warehouse and a bunch of delivery drivers is more jobs than a big-box. It's probably fairly close - operating a checkout lane is easier than delivering packages, but stocking an open-to-the-public store is harder than loading things onto delivery trucks. Figuring that out is fun, but honestly a waste of time unless you really want to get into operations research. The outside view is way better approach. Amazon will compete with Target on some combination of price and quality. In other words, Amazon will do some combination of being more efficient (= cause fewer dollars to be spent on labor) and providing new services that customers are willing to pay for (= cause more dollars to be spent on labor). So the two things we need to actually look at is how much a customer will spend monthly shopping at Target vs Amazon delivery, and average hourly rate of the employees required to provide marginal service. The first determines whether the economy is doing more work in terms of dollar value, the second determines how the growth is distributed between increased employment vs increased wages.
- pinewurst 10y agoAmazon is a widely acknowledged terrible employer yet people are silent. They make Walmart look like Google at least for their warehouse people. https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/ https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/