4 ms·

We can create laws without an indication of previous abuse. We can regulate not just because we have indicators of abuse but because we can imagine potential a

We can create laws without an indication of previous abuse. We can regulate not just because we have indicators of abuse but because we can imagine potential abuse. We don't give toddlers handguns because our pre-frontal cortex allows us the foresight to see that it's a bad idea -- we don't need to actually wait and see if one toddler shoots another.

mikeash 9y ago
Sure, but that only makes sense if there's a reason to anticipate unusual problems. Like, if Walmart was offering employees extra money to dispose of toxic waste or collect debts from delinquent customers or something, I'd see a huge potential for abuse and wouldn't consider it to be at all a good idea. Those things need special training and the potential for problems is high. But this is package delivery. It's a relatively unskilled, low-end job. Its abuse potential seems to be to be on the same level as the abuse potential of, say, lifting boxes, or stocking shelves, or mopping floors. "Walmart pays people to stock shelves" wouldn't get anyone up in arms, so why would this?
- david927 9y ago
  Because this is "off-the-clock, off-site" work. It has the potential to be extended in a way that it much harder to quantify and regulate. My, and many others', biggest concern is that the workers at Wall-Mart often need their job for subsistence; it's often not a job that they feel they can say "no" to. So if this gets extended from "Do this only if you want to make some side money," to "Doing this greatly influences if you get to keep your job," there is a problem because it's no longer within their normal hourly wage limits and it's no longer in a set physical space. Do they want to go a different direction than than directly home -- say to go to their daughter's birthday party? Again, if it's elective, there's no problem but if it becomes coerced then Wall-Mart is directly exploiting that need to keep that job. In fact, I don't see how this is much of a win for the workers. I only see how Wall-Mart is leveraging its indentured workforce, including passing the risk on to them, to expand its profit base. This is late-stage capitalism, pure and simple.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    If the pay comes out to less than their normal wage plus costs incurred then I'll completely agree. I just don't see why we'd jump to that conclusion before the details are available. If the news was "Walmart hires 100 workers for new store" we'd assume they'd get paid enough to make it worth their while (although probably not a lot!).
  - dsacco 9y ago
    > This is late stage capitalism, pure and simple. What is late stage capitalism, and why is this representative of it?
    - david927 9y ago
      The idea is that capitalism will lead, inexorably, to fewer big companies and fewer people who control those companies. Those fewer companies and people will have more and more power, the people at the other end of the spectrum (e.g. unskilled workers) will have less and less power, over time. Wall-Mart has a lot of power; its workers almost none. In fact most of its workers are kept part-time so that they don't have benefits and more than half of the full-time hourly make less than $25,000/year[1]. Remember that almost 60% of Americans don't have $500 in savings. These people are often terrified of losing their job. The notion of using workers to make deliveries is representative of late stage capitalism in that at first it sounds like Wall-Mart is letting its employees "hustle" for a bit more money, but instead it's really putting itself in the situation where it can leverage its employee's circumstances. Note that, even in this proof-of-concept stage, the risks and insurance costs are already passed to the workers[3]. Please note that I don't think Wall-Mart as a company is particularly evil or would ever try to not pay its workers for this service -- on the contrary, they will certainly, always compensate. My concern is that that compensation will not cover the costs when all variables are factored in and that while it might start as voluntary, if it's indeed profitable, that would start to be pushed toward a work culture pressure of, "Do you want to keep your job? Deliver this at a net loss to you." [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-23/more-than-half-of-wal-marts-hourly-workers-make-less-than-25-000 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-23/more-than... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings [3] https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-using-store-staff-for-last-mile-deliveries/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-usi...
anigbrowl 9y ago
Well, we don't allow people to sell handguns to toddlers. A quick search will reveal that there are quite a few deaths every year due to people negligently allowing guns to fall into the hands of toddlers. Last time I checked there was an average of ~one fatality a week.

mikeash 9y ago

Sure, but that only makes sense if there's a reason to anticipate unusual problems. Like, if Walmart was offering employees extra money to dispose of toxic waste or collect debts from delinquent customers or something, I'd see a huge potential for abuse and wouldn't consider it to be at all a good idea. Those things need special training and the potential for problems is high. But this is package delivery. It's a relatively unskilled, low-end job. Its abuse potential seems to be to be on the same level as the abuse potential of, say, lifting boxes, or stocking shelves, or mopping floors. "Walmart pays people to stock shelves" wouldn't get anyone up in arms, so why would this?

david927 9y ago
Because this is "off-the-clock, off-site" work. It has the potential to be extended in a way that it much harder to quantify and regulate. My, and many others', biggest concern is that the workers at Wall-Mart often need their job for subsistence; it's often not a job that they feel they can say "no" to. So if this gets extended from "Do this only if you want to make some side money," to "Doing this greatly influences if you get to keep your job," there is a problem because it's no longer within their normal hourly wage limits and it's no longer in a set physical space. Do they want to go a different direction than than directly home -- say to go to their daughter's birthday party? Again, if it's elective, there's no problem but if it becomes coerced then Wall-Mart is directly exploiting that need to keep that job. In fact, I don't see how this is much of a win for the workers. I only see how Wall-Mart is leveraging its indentured workforce, including passing the risk on to them, to expand its profit base. This is late-stage capitalism, pure and simple.
- mikeash 9y ago
  If the pay comes out to less than their normal wage plus costs incurred then I'll completely agree. I just don't see why we'd jump to that conclusion before the details are available. If the news was "Walmart hires 100 workers for new store" we'd assume they'd get paid enough to make it worth their while (although probably not a lot!).
- dsacco 9y ago
  > This is late stage capitalism, pure and simple. What is late stage capitalism, and why is this representative of it?
  - david927 9y ago
    The idea is that capitalism will lead, inexorably, to fewer big companies and fewer people who control those companies. Those fewer companies and people will have more and more power, the people at the other end of the spectrum (e.g. unskilled workers) will have less and less power, over time. Wall-Mart has a lot of power; its workers almost none. In fact most of its workers are kept part-time so that they don't have benefits and more than half of the full-time hourly make less than $25,000/year[1]. Remember that almost 60% of Americans don't have $500 in savings. These people are often terrified of losing their job. The notion of using workers to make deliveries is representative of late stage capitalism in that at first it sounds like Wall-Mart is letting its employees "hustle" for a bit more money, but instead it's really putting itself in the situation where it can leverage its employee's circumstances. Note that, even in this proof-of-concept stage, the risks and insurance costs are already passed to the workers[3]. Please note that I don't think Wall-Mart as a company is particularly evil or would ever try to not pay its workers for this service -- on the contrary, they will certainly, always compensate. My concern is that that compensation will not cover the costs when all variables are factored in and that while it might start as voluntary, if it's indeed profitable, that would start to be pushed toward a work culture pressure of, "Do you want to keep your job? Deliver this at a net loss to you." [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-23/more-than-half-of-wal-marts-hourly-workers-make-less-than-25-000 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-23/more-than... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/pf/americans-lack-of-savings [3] https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-using-store-staff-for-last-mile-deliveries/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/walmart-begins-testing-usi...

anigbrowl 9y ago

Well, we don't allow people to sell handguns to toddlers. A quick search will reveal that there are quite a few deaths every year due to people negligently allowing guns to fall into the hands of toddlers. Last time I checked there was an average of ~one fatality a week.