6 ms·

This job sounds shitty but have you ever spoken to someone in a domestic role? A postal employee? A trucker? A janitor at your office building? Kitchen staff at

This job sounds shitty but have you ever spoken to someone in a domestic role? A postal employee? A trucker? A janitor at your office building? Kitchen staff at a restaurant who do not even have time to take a piss without dropping the ball, let alone timed pee breaks? Lots of jobs are hard. Extremely hard. And often, jobs that are very very hard pay hardly anything. There is a two-way transaction happening here, though - you pick a job that you are qualified for, and you work at it in exchange for money. And if it's not worth the money to you, you find a different job that you're qualified for. As long as people are willing to do this job for this amount of money, it will probably not get better unfortunately. And as companies get bigger, they always morally regress to the mean. Instead of going after companies (playing whack-a-mole), I think empowering people to learn employable skills is a better investment. Also I'm going to remember the fuss about Amazon when their warehouses are 100% robotic, and everyone is mad that it's not creating enough jobs.

Asooka 9y ago
It's not about being willing, people literally have no choice. It's either starve and be homeless or work this really shitty job. We should regulate the industry so our economy doesn't have to run on brutal human misery. If that means Amazon can't deliver your package in 8 hours, but rather in 2 days, then so be it. Human life comes before profits.
- gwright 9y ago
  From a public policy standpoint, I'd rather provide some assistance to people working part-time or for low wages than to provide 100% assistance to someone who is entirely unemployed. Unfortunately many attempts to regulate the workplace result in fewer jobs and thus more people who need 100% support. One example of this is the effort to raise the minimum wage which, not surprising at all, has resulted in more incentive to eliminate or automate low-end jobs. Advocates for a $15 minimum in the fast food industry, for example, should be prepared for a net reduction in jobs in that industry as automation is rolled out or business models are modified to adjust to the higher labor costs. I'm not saying that all labor regulations are bad but I am saying that the second-order effects of many regulations can make the overall labor situation worse.
  - beejiu 9y ago
    The evidence does not support your view (at least in the UK). http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP217.pdf http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP217.pdf Even if it did, there are other policies like Basic Income that solve some of these problems in a sensible way.
- DanBC 9y ago
  The warehouse shown is in UK, which has a national minimum wage and EU working times directive and other labour protection law. Amazon needs to be careful, because the combination of this and tax avoidance could cause them trouble.
zemo 9y ago
this is extremely, extremely tone-deaf. > As long as people are willing to do this job for this amount of money, it will probably not get better unfortunately. child labor didn't stop because parents stopped being willing to sentence their kids to labor, it stopped because of laws. The free market does nothing to guarantee that working conditions are livable or humane. Any suggestion to the contrary is at best naive, at worst malicious. > I think empowering people to learn employable skills is a better investment. That's nice, but where does a single parent working wage labor have the time to learn new skills? Who is paying a livable wage for people to learn new skills?
- mriguy 9y ago
  You are right about the laws influencing child labor, however they are not a sufficient condition. There also needs to be a corresponding increase in returns to child education over and above returns from labor in order for child labor to vanish. For example: India has very strong laws, however child labor still exists.
- fredgrott 9y ago
  not really..come on either you want to take a risk and make something and sell it to get higher income or take no risk and go for that low paying warehouse job. Tell us all what risk did any one take in getting a warehouse job? Gee life is hard...really?
  - watwut 9y ago
    If there is risk involved, then there are quite a few people guaranteed to lost - and worst off then those warehouse workers. Otherwise it would not be risk, right? Are you even sure that expected payoff is worth it in agreggate? (E.g. if we don't end up with much worst overall economic situation if people would follow your advice) You talk about "taking risk" is if it would be solution to social problems. It is not.
  - zemo 9y ago
    > you want to take a risk and make something and sell it to get higher income no, almost nobody does that. People who work in an Amazon warehouse have no option to take a risk to make something, they are selling their labor because it is the only way to feed themselves. Almost nobody has the ability to "take a risk and make something". Your comment shows a complete ignorance of how the vast majority of people experience the world. The vast, vast majority of people in the world do not control the means of production or have the ability to do so, they sell their labor because they have no other choice. This attitude, that everyone being exploited is doing so because they made a choice is endemic to our industry and it is the literally reason that our industry is increasingly seen negatively by those outside of our industry. People who work in Amazon warehouses did not one day decide or not decide to take a risk: the vast majority of them are working any job they can get to avoid going hungry. If you make something and sell it, you are in control of the means of production; you are not selling your labor, you are selling a product. People who work in an Amazon warehouse are not selling a product, they are selling their labor. The vast, vast majority of people on Earth sell their labor. you are defending inhumane working conditions. You are defending subjugation in the name of business interest. This attitude and people like you make me sick of the software industry. I am disgusted by how common the attitude of utter indifference is in our industry.
colechristensen 9y ago
This kind of logic lets you justify any behavior as long as there's a market involved somehow. You're trying to give free agency to people who are very likely choosing between the only job they can find and starvation. That's not a free market, it's wage slavery. Low end employers can do anything they want as long as the alternative for enough of their candidates is starvation.
- CamelCaseName 9y ago
  If the government were to offer PTO for employees below a certain income threshold to learn new work-related skills, would that help lift people out of these situations? Or would such a system be 1. too invasive and 2. abused, either by companies or the employees.
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    That's a weird way to do it, and would tend to subsidize employers for questionable benefits. Tax incentives for employer tuition reimbursement makes more sense. Instead there should be programs to pay people minimum wage + tuition to attend community college for in-demand-career related degrees.
    - TheHegemon 9y ago
      > Tax incentives for employer tuition reimbursement makes more sense. Just when you thought tuition costs couldn't go any higher...
      - CamelCaseName 9y ago
        Perhaps large employers could negotiate better rates? Sounds like a great way to increase offer acceptance rates too.
    - krapp 9y ago
      >Instead there should be programs to pay people minimum wage + tuition to attend community college for in-demand-career related degrees. Amazon has a program like that. Unfortunately, it's only for AAS, and they only pay partial tuition. What Amazon doesn't seem to have is a program to help people grow within Amazon, beyond FC work. There are tons of in-house resources, video tutorials, etc for training that employees simply can never access because they don't have the time.
strgrd 9y ago
> Open HN comment section on an article about labor conditions > Top comment, find a better job > Every time
- johnvanommen 9y ago
  Guilty as charged lol
simion314 9y ago
Same logic could be applied 200 years ago, work 7 days a week, 12 or more hours a day , if you don't like it go and die.
kajecounterhack 9y ago
> As long as people are willing to do this job for this amount of money, it will probably not get better unfortunately. There is an inherent falsehood to this statement: it reads as if there is no alternative to a laissez faire market. Regulation serves to prevent exactly these situations. Universal limits to how many hours you can force someone to work; regulated standards to how much rest you need to give your workers; rules for how much you must pay them. Unfortunately regulation has failed to do these things. Pieces like this are helpful to remind us of this and to push our governments to do better. I don't think if you ask anyone that they like that their products are all made, packed, and shipped using wage slavery. Don't you want a world where we all have a little less thanks to efficiency losses but know that everyone is being treated with a minimum level of decency?
johnvanommen 9y ago
A friend of mine was sick of her job and planning to quit. She's a journalist with a college degree. Her plan was to get a job at Starbucks until she could figure out what to do next. As I see it, this is the LAST thing you should do in a situation like that. Though it's counterintuitive, service jobs can be very difficult to attain, because almost anyone is qualified to do it. IE, she thought that working at Starbucks would be easy. I'd argue the opposite: it's hard, because so many people are competing for low-end jobs. My recommendation to her was to figure out how to do something where the demand is high and the supply is low. My first job paid $3.35/hr, and some of the hardest jobs I've ever had paid minimum wage.

Asooka 9y ago

It's not about being willing, people literally have no choice. It's either starve and be homeless or work this really shitty job. We should regulate the industry so our economy doesn't have to run on brutal human misery. If that means Amazon can't deliver your package in 8 hours, but rather in 2 days, then so be it. Human life comes before profits.

gwright 9y ago
From a public policy standpoint, I'd rather provide some assistance to people working part-time or for low wages than to provide 100% assistance to someone who is entirely unemployed. Unfortunately many attempts to regulate the workplace result in fewer jobs and thus more people who need 100% support. One example of this is the effort to raise the minimum wage which, not surprising at all, has resulted in more incentive to eliminate or automate low-end jobs. Advocates for a $15 minimum in the fast food industry, for example, should be prepared for a net reduction in jobs in that industry as automation is rolled out or business models are modified to adjust to the higher labor costs. I'm not saying that all labor regulations are bad but I am saying that the second-order effects of many regulations can make the overall labor situation worse.
- beejiu 9y ago
  The evidence does not support your view (at least in the UK). http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP217.pdf http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP217.pdf Even if it did, there are other policies like Basic Income that solve some of these problems in a sensible way.
DanBC 9y ago
The warehouse shown is in UK, which has a national minimum wage and EU working times directive and other labour protection law. Amazon needs to be careful, because the combination of this and tax avoidance could cause them trouble.

zemo 9y ago

this is extremely, extremely tone-deaf. > As long as people are willing to do this job for this amount of money, it will probably not get better unfortunately. child labor didn't stop because parents stopped being willing to sentence their kids to labor, it stopped because of laws. The free market does nothing to guarantee that working conditions are livable or humane. Any suggestion to the contrary is at best naive, at worst malicious. > I think empowering people to learn employable skills is a better investment. That's nice, but where does a single parent working wage labor have the time to learn new skills? Who is paying a livable wage for people to learn new skills?

mriguy 9y ago
You are right about the laws influencing child labor, however they are not a sufficient condition. There also needs to be a corresponding increase in returns to child education over and above returns from labor in order for child labor to vanish. For example: India has very strong laws, however child labor still exists.
fredgrott 9y ago
not really..come on either you want to take a risk and make something and sell it to get higher income or take no risk and go for that low paying warehouse job. Tell us all what risk did any one take in getting a warehouse job? Gee life is hard...really?
- watwut 9y ago
  If there is risk involved, then there are quite a few people guaranteed to lost - and worst off then those warehouse workers. Otherwise it would not be risk, right? Are you even sure that expected payoff is worth it in agreggate? (E.g. if we don't end up with much worst overall economic situation if people would follow your advice) You talk about "taking risk" is if it would be solution to social problems. It is not.
- zemo 9y ago
  > you want to take a risk and make something and sell it to get higher income no, almost nobody does that. People who work in an Amazon warehouse have no option to take a risk to make something, they are selling their labor because it is the only way to feed themselves. Almost nobody has the ability to "take a risk and make something". Your comment shows a complete ignorance of how the vast majority of people experience the world. The vast, vast majority of people in the world do not control the means of production or have the ability to do so, they sell their labor because they have no other choice. This attitude, that everyone being exploited is doing so because they made a choice is endemic to our industry and it is the literally reason that our industry is increasingly seen negatively by those outside of our industry. People who work in Amazon warehouses did not one day decide or not decide to take a risk: the vast majority of them are working any job they can get to avoid going hungry. If you make something and sell it, you are in control of the means of production; you are not selling your labor, you are selling a product. People who work in an Amazon warehouse are not selling a product, they are selling their labor. The vast, vast majority of people on Earth sell their labor. you are defending inhumane working conditions. You are defending subjugation in the name of business interest. This attitude and people like you make me sick of the software industry. I am disgusted by how common the attitude of utter indifference is in our industry.

colechristensen 9y ago

This kind of logic lets you justify any behavior as long as there's a market involved somehow. You're trying to give free agency to people who are very likely choosing between the only job they can find and starvation. That's not a free market, it's wage slavery. Low end employers can do anything they want as long as the alternative for enough of their candidates is starvation.

CamelCaseName 9y ago
If the government were to offer PTO for employees below a certain income threshold to learn new work-related skills, would that help lift people out of these situations? Or would such a system be 1. too invasive and 2. abused, either by companies or the employees.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  That's a weird way to do it, and would tend to subsidize employers for questionable benefits. Tax incentives for employer tuition reimbursement makes more sense. Instead there should be programs to pay people minimum wage + tuition to attend community college for in-demand-career related degrees.
  - TheHegemon 9y ago
    > Tax incentives for employer tuition reimbursement makes more sense. Just when you thought tuition costs couldn't go any higher...
    - CamelCaseName 9y ago
      Perhaps large employers could negotiate better rates? Sounds like a great way to increase offer acceptance rates too.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >Instead there should be programs to pay people minimum wage + tuition to attend community college for in-demand-career related degrees. Amazon has a program like that. Unfortunately, it's only for AAS, and they only pay partial tuition. What Amazon doesn't seem to have is a program to help people grow within Amazon, beyond FC work. There are tons of in-house resources, video tutorials, etc for training that employees simply can never access because they don't have the time.

strgrd 9y ago

> Open HN comment section on an article about labor conditions > Top comment, find a better job > Every time

johnvanommen 9y ago
Guilty as charged lol

simion314 9y ago

Same logic could be applied 200 years ago, work 7 days a week, 12 or more hours a day , if you don't like it go and die.

kajecounterhack 9y ago

> As long as people are willing to do this job for this amount of money, it will probably not get better unfortunately. There is an inherent falsehood to this statement: it reads as if there is no alternative to a laissez faire market. Regulation serves to prevent exactly these situations. Universal limits to how many hours you can force someone to work; regulated standards to how much rest you need to give your workers; rules for how much you must pay them. Unfortunately regulation has failed to do these things. Pieces like this are helpful to remind us of this and to push our governments to do better. I don't think if you ask anyone that they like that their products are all made, packed, and shipped using wage slavery. Don't you want a world where we all have a little less thanks to efficiency losses but know that everyone is being treated with a minimum level of decency?

johnvanommen 9y ago

A friend of mine was sick of her job and planning to quit. She's a journalist with a college degree. Her plan was to get a job at Starbucks until she could figure out what to do next. As I see it, this is the LAST thing you should do in a situation like that. Though it's counterintuitive, service jobs can be very difficult to attain, because almost anyone is qualified to do it. IE, she thought that working at Starbucks would be easy. I'd argue the opposite: it's hard, because so many people are competing for low-end jobs. My recommendation to her was to figure out how to do something where the demand is high and the supply is low. My first job paid $3.35/hr, and some of the hardest jobs I've ever had paid minimum wage.