4 ms·

> Suppose they have a 25% attrition rate. (37 of those 125 workers quit voluntarily.) Why would they retain employees which they would not rehire (minus wages

> Suppose they have a 25% attrition rate. (37 of those 125 workers quit voluntarily.) Why would they retain employees which they would not rehire (minus wages in place of hiring cost)? They have no obligation to retain these workers, so clearly Amazon's base (non-seasonal) demand for labour increases fast enough to justify retaining them. At the current rate you would expect them to hire more labour, not less. The human jobs described here are still so far beyond current robotic technology that it's likely there will be no easy gains in automation here. Meanwhile, as Amazon's efficiency increases, throughput will also increase, which means demand for labour will continue to increase even if there are marginal increases in automation.

vertex-four 9y ago
> Why would they retain employees which they would not rehire (minus wages in place of hiring cost)? For good relations with the Government which has a goal of decreasing unemployment, and avoiding bad PR in popular media? If you can wait a couple of months to achieve exactly the same outcome with fewer risks, why not. > Meanwhile, as Amazon's efficiency increases, throughput will also increase No, throughput is a function of demand, not efficiency, unless Amazon is currently backlogged.
- markvdb 9y ago
  > For good relations with the Government which has a goal of decreasing unemployment, and avoiding bad PR in popular media? If you can wait a couple of months to achieve exactly the same outcome with fewer risks, why not. This. Technically, centralisation has given amazon the scale to automate. Socially, that same scale of centralisation exposes them to more critical eyes. Their main vulnerability I guess...