6 ms·

Wow this is ridiculous. The fund is aimed at homeless and educating early. This is not relevant to anyone he employs. Some people are so ready to get their pitc

Wow this is ridiculous. The fund is aimed at homeless and educating early. This is not relevant to anyone he employs. Some people are so ready to get their pitch forks. Damn.

eganist 8y ago
Walmart recently learned that paying people more than enough to get off of government benefits would more often precipitate better engagement and loyalty to the company, resulting in less frequent turnover, etc. (https://qz.com/work/1094309/walmart-yes-walmart-is-making-changes-that-could-help-reduce-income-inequality-in-america/ https://qz.com/work/1094309/walmart-yes-walmart-is-making-ch...) Amazon has yet to learn this one little trick. They think they're being clever by underpaying unskilled labor and leaving them to rely partly on government benefits, but then they end up having to make up for it by hiring more often, losing time to training, having to load up schedules to make up for lost time (making each employee more expensive anyway), and ultimately defending themselves against nasty articles documenting their work practices. If Walmart--the company which practically invented the practice--can move on from it, so can Amazon... a company that's mastered the art of reinvesting profits both for continual growth and to dodge Wall Street payouts for well over a decade.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  I definitely think this is true. Paying as little as possible doesn't necessarily result in increased profits. It can be so shortsighted, when all your employees are miserable and hate the companies guts.
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  Also, CostCo. But the king has to be in-n-out -- no one treats their employees better than industry peers. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/01/25/n-out-mangers-make-160-000-per-year-reports-show/1065434001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/01/25/n... But, if I'm allowed to be cute and meaningless, Bezos' wealth comes from Amazon stock, whose value comes from its future earning potential. Pay workers more, and that stock becomes worth less, so there is less to give away. But because Amazon doesn't earn any money today, the present valuation comes from promises of future fat profit margins, so a simple statement by Bezos that he will continue to increase worker wages with revenue would instantly make the stock almost worthless. And of course, Amazon can't really pay workers more today, since it doesn't have fat margins, all it could do is shift expenses down, but that doesn't really end up being so significant. At a 5% discount rate, Bezos networth of, say, 100 Billion, would be enough to pay each current Amazon employee an extra $5 per hour in perpetuity, and over time, inflation would eat away at that.
- dkural 8y ago
  If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will increase minimum wage. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage. If Americans would like people to have proper access to healthcare, they would not make it dependent on having a job and make it a universal right funded by the government, but they don't. I actually am an advocate for higher wages for all, and more government subsidy of healthcare, education, and access to daycare / pre-school; but we can't leave achieving these to whims of each business or the largesse of billionaires. Americans recently elected a president who enacted tax cuts that benefit Jeff Bezos and the wealthier segment of society, at the expense of government programs that could benefit the poor, the homeless, and the children in need of care. Also, from a purely business viewpoint: Walmart employs drastically more customer-facing retail employees compared to Amazon thus (1) their morale and behavior has a direct impact on the immediate customer experience (2) the training costs (hence the cost of replacement) is higher due to the need to train soft-skills and customer-facing skills etc. Amazon does pay hard-to-replace employees way above minimum wage, including software engineering, marketing jobs, automation, managers, etc.
  - skh 8y ago
    Race, abortion, and an irrational fear of taxation are enough to keep people voting against their self interests. These are important factors to consider when trying to understand voting patterns in the U.S.
    - phil21 8y ago
      > irrational fear of taxation Curious when it becomes rational? Literally every federal income tax bracket is more than the taxes on "tea" before the revolutionary war. Most of us making decent money in high-cost world city are paying 50% or damn near close to it in taxes. What is left to tax? If you start taking much more from me I simply quit and move to the third world where I can retire today with my current savings. This whole meme of "irrational fear of taxation" is ridiculous. Those that make money pay 50% or so in taxes, and we aren't seeing a whole lot of return for that money. I'd pay 7% more if I moved to the Netherlands today, and get a whole lot more than 7% in additional value.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  Publix has been outperforming the competition on a lot of metrics treating and paying employees well. The employees also own a good chunk of the company getting bonuses based on its profit. The founding family is still rich. Customer satisfaction rate highest in industry. Everyone wins with their model. https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/07/24/the-wal-mart-slayer-how-publixs-people-first-culture-is-winning-the-grocer-war/#169ed345880d https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/07/24/the-wal... Costco also invests in its workers who perform really well. An executive actually said once that they decided not to advertise specifically to pay workers more which would create incredible service which would spread company word of mouth. They got around $100 billion a year in revenues that way. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/040915/3-reasons-costco-great-company-cost.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/040915/3-reasons... So, companies like Walmart lost $100 billion / yr to Costco and $35 billion / yr to Publix when I looked at the numbers. Plus whatever they lost other years. Walmart finally learns having workers that care a tiny bit about the company might be good for the bottom line. Costly lesson. Also shows the benefit of dominance: they can literally throw away billions in potential sales from obvious strategies with no negative effects on their executives. ;)
- RhysU 8y ago
  > They think they're being clever by underpaying unskilled labor and leaving them to rely partly on government benefits, but then they end up having to make up for it by hiring more often, losing time to training, having to load up schedules to make up for lost time (making each employee more expensive anyway), and ultimately defending themselves against nasty articles documenting their work practices. Remember, Amazon excels at high volume logistics and labor is merely another good. They may well actually be clever. For example, hypothetically, they first squeeze labor until cementing some cost threshold acting as a defensive moat for competition then second they play nice. Or not.
echevil 8y ago
Paying employees better hourly rate, improve work conditions, and provide them chances for self-improvement. They could even hire homeless people and provide them temporary accommodation. There are tons of ways
mc32 8y ago
Also Bezos is starting the Homeless fund from his own money, Amazon pays for Amazon's employees, so they are conflating things on purpose --though I would say Amazon the co could pay their warehouse emps better, given their success --something along the lines of Costco.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Paying labor at "work at net loss rates" creates more need for charity, which is not up to the task anyway. Those people have to show up for work and doing that costs them more than they make doing said work. So, they either die for lack of resources, and that is not civilized , or someone else has to pay. I value and support public assistance. Could be any of us who needs help. I do not support assistance being necessary when it is clear the enterprise can fund it's own labor. Market dynamics do not tell the whole story here. If we were to actually watch people die, no assistance at all, those wages would come right up.
- manicdee 8y ago
  And Bezos got his money from … ?

Wow this is ridiculous. The fund is aimed at homeless and educating early. This is not relevant to anyone he employs. Some people are so ready to get their pitch forks. Damn.

eganist 8y ago

Walmart recently learned that paying people more than enough to get off of government benefits would more often precipitate better engagement and loyalty to the company, resulting in less frequent turnover, etc. (https://qz.com/work/1094309/walmart-yes-walmart-is-making-changes-that-could-help-reduce-income-inequality-in-america/ https://qz.com/work/1094309/walmart-yes-walmart-is-making-ch...) Amazon has yet to learn this one little trick. They think they're being clever by underpaying unskilled labor and leaving them to rely partly on government benefits, but then they end up having to make up for it by hiring more often, losing time to training, having to load up schedules to make up for lost time (making each employee more expensive anyway), and ultimately defending themselves against nasty articles documenting their work practices. If Walmart--the company which practically invented the practice--can move on from it, so can Amazon... a company that's mastered the art of reinvesting profits both for continual growth and to dodge Wall Street payouts for well over a decade.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
I definitely think this is true. Paying as little as possible doesn't necessarily result in increased profits. It can be so shortsighted, when all your employees are miserable and hate the companies guts.
rsj_hn 8y ago
Also, CostCo. But the king has to be in-n-out -- no one treats their employees better than industry peers. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/01/25/n-out-mangers-make-160-000-per-year-reports-show/1065434001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/01/25/n... But, if I'm allowed to be cute and meaningless, Bezos' wealth comes from Amazon stock, whose value comes from its future earning potential. Pay workers more, and that stock becomes worth less, so there is less to give away. But because Amazon doesn't earn any money today, the present valuation comes from promises of future fat profit margins, so a simple statement by Bezos that he will continue to increase worker wages with revenue would instantly make the stock almost worthless. And of course, Amazon can't really pay workers more today, since it doesn't have fat margins, all it could do is shift expenses down, but that doesn't really end up being so significant. At a 5% discount rate, Bezos networth of, say, 100 Billion, would be enough to pay each current Amazon employee an extra $5 per hour in perpetuity, and over time, inflation would eat away at that.
dkural 8y ago
If Americans are so keen to pay people better they should vote to elect leaders who will increase minimum wage. But they don't. So it does seem that the majority of voters don't care enough to increase minimum wage. If Americans would like people to have proper access to healthcare, they would not make it dependent on having a job and make it a universal right funded by the government, but they don't. I actually am an advocate for higher wages for all, and more government subsidy of healthcare, education, and access to daycare / pre-school; but we can't leave achieving these to whims of each business or the largesse of billionaires. Americans recently elected a president who enacted tax cuts that benefit Jeff Bezos and the wealthier segment of society, at the expense of government programs that could benefit the poor, the homeless, and the children in need of care. Also, from a purely business viewpoint: Walmart employs drastically more customer-facing retail employees compared to Amazon thus (1) their morale and behavior has a direct impact on the immediate customer experience (2) the training costs (hence the cost of replacement) is higher due to the need to train soft-skills and customer-facing skills etc. Amazon does pay hard-to-replace employees way above minimum wage, including software engineering, marketing jobs, automation, managers, etc.
- skh 8y ago
  Race, abortion, and an irrational fear of taxation are enough to keep people voting against their self interests. These are important factors to consider when trying to understand voting patterns in the U.S.
  - phil21 8y ago
    > irrational fear of taxation Curious when it becomes rational? Literally every federal income tax bracket is more than the taxes on "tea" before the revolutionary war. Most of us making decent money in high-cost world city are paying 50% or damn near close to it in taxes. What is left to tax? If you start taking much more from me I simply quit and move to the third world where I can retire today with my current savings. This whole meme of "irrational fear of taxation" is ridiculous. Those that make money pay 50% or so in taxes, and we aren't seeing a whole lot of return for that money. I'd pay 7% more if I moved to the Netherlands today, and get a whole lot more than 7% in additional value.
nickpsecurity 8y ago
Publix has been outperforming the competition on a lot of metrics treating and paying employees well. The employees also own a good chunk of the company getting bonuses based on its profit. The founding family is still rich. Customer satisfaction rate highest in industry. Everyone wins with their model. https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/07/24/the-wal-mart-slayer-how-publixs-people-first-culture-is-winning-the-grocer-war/#169ed345880d https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/07/24/the-wal... Costco also invests in its workers who perform really well. An executive actually said once that they decided not to advertise specifically to pay workers more which would create incredible service which would spread company word of mouth. They got around $100 billion a year in revenues that way. https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/040915/3-reasons-costco-great-company-cost.aspx https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/040915/3-reasons... So, companies like Walmart lost $100 billion / yr to Costco and $35 billion / yr to Publix when I looked at the numbers. Plus whatever they lost other years. Walmart finally learns having workers that care a tiny bit about the company might be good for the bottom line. Costly lesson. Also shows the benefit of dominance: they can literally throw away billions in potential sales from obvious strategies with no negative effects on their executives. ;)
RhysU 8y ago
> They think they're being clever by underpaying unskilled labor and leaving them to rely partly on government benefits, but then they end up having to make up for it by hiring more often, losing time to training, having to load up schedules to make up for lost time (making each employee more expensive anyway), and ultimately defending themselves against nasty articles documenting their work practices. Remember, Amazon excels at high volume logistics and labor is merely another good. They may well actually be clever. For example, hypothetically, they first squeeze labor until cementing some cost threshold acting as a defensive moat for competition then second they play nice. Or not.

echevil 8y ago

Paying employees better hourly rate, improve work conditions, and provide them chances for self-improvement. They could even hire homeless people and provide them temporary accommodation. There are tons of ways

mc32 8y ago

Also Bezos is starting the Homeless fund from his own money, Amazon pays for Amazon's employees, so they are conflating things on purpose --though I would say Amazon the co could pay their warehouse emps better, given their success --something along the lines of Costco.

ddingus 8y ago
Paying labor at "work at net loss rates" creates more need for charity, which is not up to the task anyway. Those people have to show up for work and doing that costs them more than they make doing said work. So, they either die for lack of resources, and that is not civilized , or someone else has to pay. I value and support public assistance. Could be any of us who needs help. I do not support assistance being necessary when it is clear the enterprise can fund it's own labor. Market dynamics do not tell the whole story here. If we were to actually watch people die, no assistance at all, those wages would come right up.
manicdee 8y ago
And Bezos got his money from … ?