5 ms·

As always, I'm surprised to see outrage over employee wages from a startup and business focused community (Hacker News). What is it that you purpose Amazon jus

As always, I'm surprised to see outrage over employee wages from a startup and business focused community (Hacker News). What is it that you purpose Amazon just pay everybody $200,000 a year and then go out of business? This is really basic economics, and I strongly believe in the American dream, you can work your way up and Amazon provides ample opportunities for growth. Curious, are you a US citizen?

barryhoodlum 9y ago
The OP is talking about the way lowest paid employees are treated. Of course paying everyone 200k is ridiculous, but they didn't even come close to suggesting that should be the case.
wavefunction 9y ago
You present a false dichotomy as your argument. Reality is a continuum, not two simple poles of "mistreat your employees" or pay them $200k.
supercanuck 9y ago
How about we let people have fifteen minute breaks and they don’t start until they get to to the break area Baby steps.
- DrScump 9y ago
  And have their daily security searches of employees (and time waiting in line for same) be on company time, not employees' time.
firethief 9y ago
Yes, it's the practical thing for a business like Amazon to do in the current economic and social environment. But you seem to be asking us to take quite a leap of faith from there to "this is how it should be and people who think otherwise are Unamerican".
Applejinx 9y ago
If you're legally allowed to pay people $4.95 a week and work 'em at gunpoint, that becomes the new maximum efficiency point (provided enough humans and/or robots can be procured) and the existing Amazon goes out of business, unable to compete. For that matter, if Amazon permitted just anybody to grow and work their way up, there'd be a lot of warehouse people or code-mongers thinking they should prosper, and there's not room for all of them. That's basic economics too, and it means that no, you can't work your way up nor can you grow. There's already a Jeff Bezos, and you're not it. There's also a 'your boss' and you're not that, either. So, the practical implementation of human worker wages remains very interesting to people, and the fact that Amazon's the best at arbitraging this dynamic is relevant. What you see as outrage is simply people's reactions to that very basic economics: to what extent can a company define the conditions for an industry (or all of society) by exploiting the rules and running as close to the edge as possible? One assumes there's a spectrum and that you can get a 'good job' and have less misery than your fellow worker, if you try hard or you're lucky or wealthy or nepotistic enough. One also assumes that if you 'work your way up' you're wealthier and have it easier and can live large like some important person. Amazon flips that on its head. If you're in the Amazon model, there is no 'up'. At every level, you're existing in maximum tolerable misery because that is your global strategy to outcompete every other business entity that threatens you or could ever threaten you. If you're 'winning' as an individual, that hurts the company: the company wins if everybody from bottom to top is struggling in the optimal misery/output balance, to the extent of applicable laws. It's a conversation worth having. This is the formula for corporate efficiency, but to what extent should humans operate NOT at the point of maximum misery? The American Dream is an intangible. If other people aren't impressed by it, then offering it as primary compensation is disingenuous. I'm particularly dismayed by trying to mandate it… it's a pretty lame dream if you look at things in a more systemic fashion. It has already led to the collapse of the American middle and lower classes, and this is only accelerating. An American 'oh, hi, I'm awake now' might be a wiser alternative…
krapp 9y ago
> What is it that you purpose Amazon just pay everybody $200,000 a year and then go out of business? How about they just pay enough for full time employees to actually live where they work, without taking overtime, a second job and a roommate just to make ends meet? Pay in proportion to the standard of living? >you can work your way up and Amazon provides ample opportunities for growth. Yes, but most of those opportunities only present more responsibility, but not more (or barely more) pay, at least at the bottom tiers. You can work your way up from the bottom for years and still make less than someone sacking groceries.
- nodesocket 9y ago
  > How about they just pay enough for full time employees to actually live where they work, without taking overtime, a second job and a roommate just to make ends meet? Pay in proportion to the standard of living? I'd argue that they do. The market decides, and clearly people are still willing to accept the positions at the offered salary. Would you rather they be unemployed, or have a job at Amazon? This is at-will employment, nobody is forcing anybody to work at these positions.
  - krapp 9y ago
    True, Amazon tends to pay the minimum that the market allows, and people are willing to accept work for that pay, but they also have high turnover, and people also quit in droves. It's rational for them, as a company, to want to reduce costs by keeping wages low, but I don't believe the labor market agrees with it so much as tolerates it. I'm also not certain they couldn't afford a few dollars more an hour for full time employees (in whom, it's assumed, they want to make a long-term investment), rather, that they simply have a culture of being as cheap about everything as possible. But this attitude (referred to as "frugality" but in practice it's just cheapness) has negative effects in terms of employee morale, cultural investment, and labor quality that Amazon has apparently decided aren't worth improving.

barryhoodlum 9y ago

The OP is talking about the way lowest paid employees are treated. Of course paying everyone 200k is ridiculous, but they didn't even come close to suggesting that should be the case.

wavefunction 9y ago

You present a false dichotomy as your argument. Reality is a continuum, not two simple poles of "mistreat your employees" or pay them $200k.

supercanuck 9y ago

How about we let people have fifteen minute breaks and they don’t start until they get to to the break area Baby steps.

DrScump 9y ago
And have their daily security searches of employees (and time waiting in line for same) be on company time, not employees' time.

firethief 9y ago

Yes, it's the practical thing for a business like Amazon to do in the current economic and social environment. But you seem to be asking us to take quite a leap of faith from there to "this is how it should be and people who think otherwise are Unamerican".

Applejinx 9y ago

If you're legally allowed to pay people $4.95 a week and work 'em at gunpoint, that becomes the new maximum efficiency point (provided enough humans and/or robots can be procured) and the existing Amazon goes out of business, unable to compete. For that matter, if Amazon permitted just anybody to grow and work their way up, there'd be a lot of warehouse people or code-mongers thinking they should prosper, and there's not room for all of them. That's basic economics too, and it means that no, you can't work your way up nor can you grow. There's already a Jeff Bezos, and you're not it. There's also a 'your boss' and you're not that, either. So, the practical implementation of human worker wages remains very interesting to people, and the fact that Amazon's the best at arbitraging this dynamic is relevant. What you see as outrage is simply people's reactions to that very basic economics: to what extent can a company define the conditions for an industry (or all of society) by exploiting the rules and running as close to the edge as possible? One assumes there's a spectrum and that you can get a 'good job' and have less misery than your fellow worker, if you try hard or you're lucky or wealthy or nepotistic enough. One also assumes that if you 'work your way up' you're wealthier and have it easier and can live large like some important person. Amazon flips that on its head. If you're in the Amazon model, there is no 'up'. At every level, you're existing in maximum tolerable misery because that is your global strategy to outcompete every other business entity that threatens you or could ever threaten you. If you're 'winning' as an individual, that hurts the company: the company wins if everybody from bottom to top is struggling in the optimal misery/output balance, to the extent of applicable laws. It's a conversation worth having. This is the formula for corporate efficiency, but to what extent should humans operate NOT at the point of maximum misery? The American Dream is an intangible. If other people aren't impressed by it, then offering it as primary compensation is disingenuous. I'm particularly dismayed by trying to mandate it… it's a pretty lame dream if you look at things in a more systemic fashion. It has already led to the collapse of the American middle and lower classes, and this is only accelerating. An American 'oh, hi, I'm awake now' might be a wiser alternative…

krapp 9y ago

> What is it that you purpose Amazon just pay everybody $200,000 a year and then go out of business? How about they just pay enough for full time employees to actually live where they work, without taking overtime, a second job and a roommate just to make ends meet? Pay in proportion to the standard of living? >you can work your way up and Amazon provides ample opportunities for growth. Yes, but most of those opportunities only present more responsibility, but not more (or barely more) pay, at least at the bottom tiers. You can work your way up from the bottom for years and still make less than someone sacking groceries.

nodesocket 9y ago
> How about they just pay enough for full time employees to actually live where they work, without taking overtime, a second job and a roommate just to make ends meet? Pay in proportion to the standard of living? I'd argue that they do. The market decides, and clearly people are still willing to accept the positions at the offered salary. Would you rather they be unemployed, or have a job at Amazon? This is at-will employment, nobody is forcing anybody to work at these positions.
- krapp 9y ago
  True, Amazon tends to pay the minimum that the market allows, and people are willing to accept work for that pay, but they also have high turnover, and people also quit in droves. It's rational for them, as a company, to want to reduce costs by keeping wages low, but I don't believe the labor market agrees with it so much as tolerates it. I'm also not certain they couldn't afford a few dollars more an hour for full time employees (in whom, it's assumed, they want to make a long-term investment), rather, that they simply have a culture of being as cheap about everything as possible. But this attitude (referred to as "frugality" but in practice it's just cheapness) has negative effects in terms of employee morale, cultural investment, and labor quality that Amazon has apparently decided aren't worth improving.