3 ms·

Lots of comments attacking Amazon for lowering wages but ignoring the fact that warehouse work in general is on borrowed time and going the way of horse and bug

Lots of comments attacking Amazon for lowering wages but ignoring the fact that warehouse work in general is on borrowed time and going the way of horse and buggies (https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY) At some point in the near future, these jobs won’t exist. Are the commentators suggesting they not be automated? Likewise long truck driver driving is going to eventually collapse. Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just accelerate the drive to full automation.

krapp 8y ago
>Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just accelerate the drive to full automation. No one is asking that Amazon pay a vastly higher salary to their low tier employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees and pay accordingly within a particular market. The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full time employee, even if their position is likely to be automated in the future. That shouldn't be considered a luxury only available to the well-to-do. If the likelihood of automation is a valid rationale for lowering wages then just about everyone should be living on borrowed time and $12.00/hr. And Amazon is pushing for full automation at maximum speed regardless, so employee wages are likely not a factor in that timeline.
- ti_ranger 8y ago
  > No one is asking that Amazon pay a vastly higher salary to their low tier employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees and pay accordingly within a particular market. If Amazon is paying too little compared to that "particular market", surely they wouldn't get enough applicants? I guess you mean something else than "market" here ... > The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full time employee, even if their position is likely to be automated in the future. Then the government should set a (higher) minimum wage (and benefits), they way most other governments in the first (and third) world do. A company's primary obligation is to their shareholders. A government's primary obligation should be to their constituents/voters/residents/citizens. Which one is failing their primary stakeholder the most here?
- firstplacelast 8y ago
  It's pretty stupid to expect a corporation to pay people more "because they should." This is what government/laws/unions should help with. I just don't get the idealism of the 21st century. "Jobs should pay more or we will shame you", say the people. "Get fucked", says the company. And now we are here...

krapp 8y ago

>Any attempt to make Amazon pay a vastly higher salary for packers will just accelerate the drive to full automation. No one is asking that Amazon pay a vastly higher salary to their low tier employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees and pay accordingly within a particular market. The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full time employee, even if their position is likely to be automated in the future. That shouldn't be considered a luxury only available to the well-to-do. If the likelihood of automation is a valid rationale for lowering wages then just about everyone should be living on borrowed time and $12.00/hr. And Amazon is pushing for full automation at maximum speed regardless, so employee wages are likely not a factor in that timeline.

ti_ranger 8y ago
> No one is asking that Amazon pay a vastly higher salary to their low tier employees, only that they consider the cost of living for those employees and pay accordingly within a particular market. If Amazon is paying too little compared to that "particular market", surely they wouldn't get enough applicants? I guess you mean something else than "market" here ... > The means to afford food and housing should not be out of reach of a full time employee, even if their position is likely to be automated in the future. Then the government should set a (higher) minimum wage (and benefits), they way most other governments in the first (and third) world do. A company's primary obligation is to their shareholders. A government's primary obligation should be to their constituents/voters/residents/citizens. Which one is failing their primary stakeholder the most here?
firstplacelast 8y ago
It's pretty stupid to expect a corporation to pay people more "because they should." This is what government/laws/unions should help with. I just don't get the idealism of the 21st century. "Jobs should pay more or we will shame you", say the people. "Get fucked", says the company. And now we are here...