5 ms·

You're assuming 2 kids and 1 income earner, though. It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a

You're assuming 2 kids and 1 income earner, though. It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a society where it's possible for the people currently working for $26k/yr to have a stable roadmap to much higher earnings. But I don't think Amazon alone is to blame for the problem.

elicash 9y ago
I'm not assuming everyone with that salary qualifies. I think we just have different definitions of "sizable." I think given these numbers it's highly likely to be sizable percentage of salaries, essentially, that we're subsidizing for Amazon because of their refusal to pay living wages. What's sizable? 5%? 10%? 30%? Hard to say, and I don't exactly expect Amazon to come forward with these numbers. Edit: Here's an article claiming it's more than 10% in Ohio that are on SNAP: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-employees-food-stamps-poverty-snap.html https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-e...
- jrs95 9y ago
  Are we subsidizing Amazon, or are we subsidizing irresponsible reproduction? Maybe both?
SolarNet 9y ago
Except raising the minimum wage is often met with cries that it will stifle business and prevent competition. The problem is fundamentally that labor markets can't be free markets, and the minimum wage is not a viable way to control the market distortions. The better solution is to use a basic income which allows people to not work for companies like Amazon until they can pay a better wage.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  A minimum wage of $7/hr in the Bay Area or NYC is useless. That won't cover transportation. $14/hr is still, basically, the same amount of more or less useless. In, to quote Ken White, "pluck-my-banjo" Texas, that's a perfectly fine and livable sum. A dollar or two raise and you can probably start saving up for a house realistically. $14/hr is kingly. Amazon warehouses are usually not in banjo-playing rural areas, but rather as close to major towns as is economically feasible for Amazon's rent bill. This is neither a basic income nor a federal minimum wage problem. This is a lack of competing opportunities for minimally skilled workers problem. If these same workers had realistic job opportunities that paid well, then Amazon would have to raise wages (and pass some of that onto the consumers, but, that's relatively nothing).
  - gowld 9y ago
    There's a large tier between banjo-playing Texas and "Bay Area" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfillment_and_warehousing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfi...
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Can we please end this charade of pretending a $14 wage is kingly anywhere? I mean even the whole idea of 'banjo-playing areas'? Come on. I find it really gross the way people that have good jobs and have never left urban/suburban environments typecast the rest of the country.
    - sol_remmy 9y ago
      > I find it gross that.. Can you leave the mock disgust behind? You probably live in an urban/suburban area just like the rest of us, yet your lecturing us. $14 an hour is not as bad as you think. Median nursing salary in England = 23000 pounds = 32300 usd. So the median amazon warehouse worker makes 82.5% of what the median nurse makes in the U.K. Is that really so bad?
      - deadmetheny 9y ago
        I do live in a rural area of the USA, and I can verify that making $14/hr is enough to live a modest lower middle class lifestyle around here. Is that good enough for you? A lot of people here have preconceived notions about the living conditions of non-coastal areas and, to be frank, it gets old. OP is correct to lecture people because they are completely fucking correct in most cases.
      - thirdsun 9y ago
        You can't compare absolute wages between the US and europe. This kind of money will buy you a way better life in europe if you consider health care, social security and overall working conditions.
    - epicureanideal 9y ago
- scarface74 9y ago
  Amazon already owns Kiva. If you make the minimum wage high enough, it just gives them more incentive to automate.
  - krapp 9y ago
    It's impossible to give Amazon more incentive to automate, since they already intend to automate everything as soon as it's feasible. Raising minimum wage or even wages in general for warehouse workers wouldn't accelerate that schedule, since the obstacles to automation are primarily technical. Kivas are nice and all, but they can't pick and they definitely can't stow. They could probably move pallets, but couldn't palletize, and having them run around the facilities at the necessary speed dragging a train of pallets would be a safety hazard. They are really good at reading QR codes and turning at 90 degree angles, though.
    - SE4L 9y ago
      But it's a business decision to pay expensive engineering time to automate what can be done by people for much cheaper. If the people become too expensive, the business decision becomes easier. There are places in India where they pay 100 men pennies to dig a trench. Sure, they could buy a machine so 1 person could do the work of 100, but if the machine costs 100k and the guy who is trained to operate it makes 10 an hour, the payoff time is too long to justify. If the guys digging the trench demand 5 an hour, the barrier to the investment goes down significantly. This is why, if a 15 dollar minimum wage is passed nation wide, you will never order from a person at McDonald's again... and any niche restaurant that does use people will cost significantly more. A large business like McDonalds benefits from this because they can absorb the cost. A small business can't, so big corporation's have less competition and can make even larger profits because they have less downward pressure on their prices.
      - krapp 9y ago
        I can't back it up with data, but I'm not certain that $15/hr would be too expensive for Amazon warehouse labor. Automating those warehouses entirely would either require very expensive, as yet technically infeasible, robots (and the engineering infrastructure to maintain them) capable of adapting to the existing human-centric ergonomics, and/or committing to redesigning all of the facilities around a new automation paradigm. Paying humans more still seems like a better deal for the forseeable future.

elicash 9y ago

I'm not assuming everyone with that salary qualifies. I think we just have different definitions of "sizable." I think given these numbers it's highly likely to be sizable percentage of salaries, essentially, that we're subsidizing for Amazon because of their refusal to pay living wages. What's sizable? 5%? 10%? 30%? Hard to say, and I don't exactly expect Amazon to come forward with these numbers. Edit: Here's an article claiming it's more than 10% in Ohio that are on SNAP: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-employees-food-stamps-poverty-snap.html https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/08/amazon-e...

jrs95 9y ago
Are we subsidizing Amazon, or are we subsidizing irresponsible reproduction? Maybe both?

SolarNet 9y ago

Except raising the minimum wage is often met with cries that it will stifle business and prevent competition. The problem is fundamentally that labor markets can't be free markets, and the minimum wage is not a viable way to control the market distortions. The better solution is to use a basic income which allows people to not work for companies like Amazon until they can pay a better wage.

vorpalhex 9y ago
A minimum wage of $7/hr in the Bay Area or NYC is useless. That won't cover transportation. $14/hr is still, basically, the same amount of more or less useless. In, to quote Ken White, "pluck-my-banjo" Texas, that's a perfectly fine and livable sum. A dollar or two raise and you can probably start saving up for a house realistically. $14/hr is kingly. Amazon warehouses are usually not in banjo-playing rural areas, but rather as close to major towns as is economically feasible for Amazon's rent bill. This is neither a basic income nor a federal minimum wage problem. This is a lack of competing opportunities for minimally skilled workers problem. If these same workers had realistic job opportunities that paid well, then Amazon would have to raise wages (and pass some of that onto the consumers, but, that's relatively nothing).
- gowld 9y ago
  There's a large tier between banjo-playing Texas and "Bay Area" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfillment_and_warehousing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amazon_locations#Fulfi...
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Can we please end this charade of pretending a $14 wage is kingly anywhere? I mean even the whole idea of 'banjo-playing areas'? Come on. I find it really gross the way people that have good jobs and have never left urban/suburban environments typecast the rest of the country.
  - sol_remmy 9y ago
    > I find it gross that.. Can you leave the mock disgust behind? You probably live in an urban/suburban area just like the rest of us, yet your lecturing us. $14 an hour is not as bad as you think. Median nursing salary in England = 23000 pounds = 32300 usd. So the median amazon warehouse worker makes 82.5% of what the median nurse makes in the U.K. Is that really so bad?
    - deadmetheny 9y ago
      I do live in a rural area of the USA, and I can verify that making $14/hr is enough to live a modest lower middle class lifestyle around here. Is that good enough for you? A lot of people here have preconceived notions about the living conditions of non-coastal areas and, to be frank, it gets old. OP is correct to lecture people because they are completely fucking correct in most cases.
    - thirdsun 9y ago
      You can't compare absolute wages between the US and europe. This kind of money will buy you a way better life in europe if you consider health care, social security and overall working conditions.
  - epicureanideal 9y ago
scarface74 9y ago
Amazon already owns Kiva. If you make the minimum wage high enough, it just gives them more incentive to automate.
- krapp 9y ago
  It's impossible to give Amazon more incentive to automate, since they already intend to automate everything as soon as it's feasible. Raising minimum wage or even wages in general for warehouse workers wouldn't accelerate that schedule, since the obstacles to automation are primarily technical. Kivas are nice and all, but they can't pick and they definitely can't stow. They could probably move pallets, but couldn't palletize, and having them run around the facilities at the necessary speed dragging a train of pallets would be a safety hazard. They are really good at reading QR codes and turning at 90 degree angles, though.
  - SE4L 9y ago
    But it's a business decision to pay expensive engineering time to automate what can be done by people for much cheaper. If the people become too expensive, the business decision becomes easier. There are places in India where they pay 100 men pennies to dig a trench. Sure, they could buy a machine so 1 person could do the work of 100, but if the machine costs 100k and the guy who is trained to operate it makes 10 an hour, the payoff time is too long to justify. If the guys digging the trench demand 5 an hour, the barrier to the investment goes down significantly. This is why, if a 15 dollar minimum wage is passed nation wide, you will never order from a person at McDonald's again... and any niche restaurant that does use people will cost significantly more. A large business like McDonalds benefits from this because they can absorb the cost. A small business can't, so big corporation's have less competition and can make even larger profits because they have less downward pressure on their prices.
    - krapp 9y ago
      I can't back it up with data, but I'm not certain that $15/hr would be too expensive for Amazon warehouse labor. Automating those warehouses entirely would either require very expensive, as yet technically infeasible, robots (and the engineering infrastructure to maintain them) capable of adapting to the existing human-centric ergonomics, and/or committing to redesigning all of the facilities around a new automation paradigm. Paying humans more still seems like a better deal for the forseeable future.