6 ms·

Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health

Why? Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? What is your calculus that helped you arrive at it being the case that the now former monetary incentives' value was outweighed by the decrease in worker health that you have perceived?

robryan 8y ago
They will be making more now than what the bonus would have made them previously though.
notfromhere 8y ago
Because people have a long-established inability to fully realize the long-term impacts of things when compared to short-term benefit?
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Wait, you mean that drinking cases of Diet Coke and beer all day and working 18 hours a day for your 20s May have long term health impacts?
  - com2kid 8y ago
    People who worked as teenagers working at ice cream parlors report life long pain in their dominant wrist. Is that something you expect a 16 year old to know is going to happen? Biomechanics is a complicated subject.
    - Spooky23 8y ago
      Totally agree — my sarcasm may not have been clear. I worked on a farm throwing hay from 12-17. I ended up needing back surgery at 25.
      - com2kid 8y ago
        Sorry, I read it as another one of those "dumb entitled kids get what they deserve!" posts. It is hard to tell nowadays, with multiple people coming out and saying things like "millennials could afford houses if they didn't buy iPhones!"
- andrestan 8y ago
  "people" aren't but you are able to for them? What makes you so much better than the workers at Amazon?
  - notfromhere 8y ago
    Employers creative incentive structures that screw over employees in the long-term is objectively bad.
techsupporter 8y ago
In every thread like this, there's an argument like yours, taking the absolutist view that individual workers should have unlimited freedom ("completely and totally incapable," as you wrote) to sacrifice themselves for money. In the micro sense, you are possibly correct. However, as a society, we have decided at the macro level that no, workers are not free to make that decision because to do so would inherently drive the collective working environment to the bottom. We make rules about a lot of things to protect the collective good at the sacrifice of the individual. Workers are not free to decide that climbing a tall tower without a safety harness so as to go faster and complete more jobs for more money is acceptable. Workers are not free to decide to put their unprotected hands into fast-moving machinery so as to be more efficient and complete more piecework for more money is acceptable. Workers are not free to decide to inhale toxic gases, labor in buildings without sanitary facilities, or be worked non-stop until the worker passes out from exhaustion. (These are, of course, generalities but, again, we as a society have also decided that carve-outs can exist where required but these are the exceptions to the wide rule.) I would also note that the person to whom you replied expressed a favorable opinion of the trade-off for health against money not being made. No rule or law was proposed. That, too, is part of what society does: we debate things in good faith, not with the assumption that an opinion is a dictate by fiat. These rules are generally considered acceptable and good. It is up to you, the person with the view opposed to the current situation, to express why you disagree instead of simply turning the question back on the person commenting.
- ip26 8y ago
  because to do so would inherently drive the collective working environment to the bottom Also the part where the cost burdens of bad health outcomes are generally socialized.
  - Trill-I-Am 8y ago
    Many people who object to unions would also object to that, thought
- seventhtiger 8y ago
  You make a great point. We have to be careful when we design a race to the bottom. We don't let companies do it to themselves, so we shouldn't let them do it to their employees. There's also the fact that if you are free to choose it, you could also be pressured to choose it. Like companies that give you the freedom to cash out your vacation instead of taking it. It'd be great because not all of us want to go on vacation every year. But unless there's a mandatory minimum vacation, some employees will be pressured into literally never taking a vacation. Think of Japanese work culture. Top down work-life balance measures are completely ignored because they're not mandatory.
cortesoft 8y ago
I mean, can't this argument be made against ALL worker protections? We don't need OSHA, workers should decide for themselves how dangerous they want to be. We don't need minimum wage laws, workers should decide. We don't need overtime laws, let workers decide. We have seen what happens when you remove all restrictions on how employers can treat workers - workers get horribly abused and often times die. If you think this wouldn't happen to modern workers, go look at what goes on in Dubai and the UAE.
- okr 8y ago
  It would be nice to hear opinions from the workers at amazon. I find it very compelling to agree with you. But i also like to make my own decision, to negotiate. My ideal, at least. And i expect my elders and seniors to teach me about the dangers in this world. And I also think, its a two way street. I will not risk my life, and Amazon does not want dead people. And is US and Dubai really comparable? Why do people go so far, to work there? Don't they tell their relatives at home, how shitty it is? Why are they going? Why do they risk it? And who am i to judge their decision making? Many confusing signals i receive.
  - Daishiman 8y ago
    > And is US and Dubai really comparable? Why do people go so far, to work there? Don't they tell their relatives at home, how shitty it is? Why are they going? Why do they risk it? And who am i to judge their decision making? Because people taking this up live in even worse conditions in some of the most abject poverty there is and they have no way to climb up the social ladder that doesn't involve saving some money with this kind of work even at the expense of their physical safety.
    - okr 8y ago
      And here i am confused. So from their perspective, they can achieve something better for themselves, with that risk. And from my perspective, i see it as abuse of their situation, because iam on a different cushion level, where i dont have to risk my life for my job. Good luck to them!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lozenge 8y ago
How do you think people gain this mystical knowledge of how targeting that extra level of throughput will affect their health?
Spooky23 8y ago
Because Taylorism is a blunt instrument that is marginally effective. If you’ve ever worked in an environment with those sorts of incentives, it’s immediately obvious that they are loosely related to productivity and turn into tools of favoritism and control. Amazon isn’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They no doubt concluded that just focusing on objective, easily controlled measurements like hours ultimately made more sense. The workers themselves are disposable anyway. Besides, the workers now have more guaranteed income that can be invested in Amazon stock! They gain the freedom of dollar cost averaging.
mikestew 8y ago
Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? Such a decision would be short-lived, as the level of work required to maintain bonus-level status would become the new baseline. Minimum wage + bonus will become your new pay structure.
- andrestan 8y ago
  Citation needed. This makes no sense. There's always going to be heterogeneity in output per worker in every role. Amazon pays for a baseline of expected output and wants to ensure that within a role they can manage to capture those workers whose productivity will exceed that. To do so, they provide performance bonuses. Not everyone will get the performance bonuses. Amazon is willing to pay the bonuses because the increased output is worth the increased cost. This race to the bottom isn't at all aligned with reasoning and could only happen in a monopsony which Amazon is obviously not. For white collar roles, we don't claim performance tied compensation will lead to this, but you do here. Why?
oh-kumudo 8y ago
I mean you can't have both.
br3n7 8y ago
Yes

robryan 8y ago

They will be making more now than what the bonus would have made them previously though.

notfromhere 8y ago

Because people have a long-established inability to fully realize the long-term impacts of things when compared to short-term benefit?

Spooky23 8y ago
Wait, you mean that drinking cases of Diet Coke and beer all day and working 18 hours a day for your 20s May have long term health impacts?
- com2kid 8y ago
  People who worked as teenagers working at ice cream parlors report life long pain in their dominant wrist. Is that something you expect a 16 year old to know is going to happen? Biomechanics is a complicated subject.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Totally agree — my sarcasm may not have been clear. I worked on a farm throwing hay from 12-17. I ended up needing back surgery at 25.
    - com2kid 8y ago
      Sorry, I read it as another one of those "dumb entitled kids get what they deserve!" posts. It is hard to tell nowadays, with multiple people coming out and saying things like "millennials could afford houses if they didn't buy iPhones!"
andrestan 8y ago
"people" aren't but you are able to for them? What makes you so much better than the workers at Amazon?
- notfromhere 8y ago
  Employers creative incentive structures that screw over employees in the long-term is objectively bad.

techsupporter 8y ago

In every thread like this, there's an argument like yours, taking the absolutist view that individual workers should have unlimited freedom ("completely and totally incapable," as you wrote) to sacrifice themselves for money. In the micro sense, you are possibly correct. However, as a society, we have decided at the macro level that no, workers are not free to make that decision because to do so would inherently drive the collective working environment to the bottom. We make rules about a lot of things to protect the collective good at the sacrifice of the individual. Workers are not free to decide that climbing a tall tower without a safety harness so as to go faster and complete more jobs for more money is acceptable. Workers are not free to decide to put their unprotected hands into fast-moving machinery so as to be more efficient and complete more piecework for more money is acceptable. Workers are not free to decide to inhale toxic gases, labor in buildings without sanitary facilities, or be worked non-stop until the worker passes out from exhaustion. (These are, of course, generalities but, again, we as a society have also decided that carve-outs can exist where required but these are the exceptions to the wide rule.) I would also note that the person to whom you replied expressed a favorable opinion of the trade-off for health against money not being made. No rule or law was proposed. That, too, is part of what society does: we debate things in good faith, not with the assumption that an opinion is a dictate by fiat. These rules are generally considered acceptable and good. It is up to you, the person with the view opposed to the current situation, to express why you disagree instead of simply turning the question back on the person commenting.

ip26 8y ago
because to do so would inherently drive the collective working environment to the bottom Also the part where the cost burdens of bad health outcomes are generally socialized.
- Trill-I-Am 8y ago
  Many people who object to unions would also object to that, thought
seventhtiger 8y ago
You make a great point. We have to be careful when we design a race to the bottom. We don't let companies do it to themselves, so we shouldn't let them do it to their employees. There's also the fact that if you are free to choose it, you could also be pressured to choose it. Like companies that give you the freedom to cash out your vacation instead of taking it. It'd be great because not all of us want to go on vacation every year. But unless there's a mandatory minimum vacation, some employees will be pressured into literally never taking a vacation. Think of Japanese work culture. Top down work-life balance measures are completely ignored because they're not mandatory.

cortesoft 8y ago

I mean, can't this argument be made against ALL worker protections? We don't need OSHA, workers should decide for themselves how dangerous they want to be. We don't need minimum wage laws, workers should decide. We don't need overtime laws, let workers decide. We have seen what happens when you remove all restrictions on how employers can treat workers - workers get horribly abused and often times die. If you think this wouldn't happen to modern workers, go look at what goes on in Dubai and the UAE.

okr 8y ago
It would be nice to hear opinions from the workers at amazon. I find it very compelling to agree with you. But i also like to make my own decision, to negotiate. My ideal, at least. And i expect my elders and seniors to teach me about the dangers in this world. And I also think, its a two way street. I will not risk my life, and Amazon does not want dead people. And is US and Dubai really comparable? Why do people go so far, to work there? Don't they tell their relatives at home, how shitty it is? Why are they going? Why do they risk it? And who am i to judge their decision making? Many confusing signals i receive.
- Daishiman 8y ago
  > And is US and Dubai really comparable? Why do people go so far, to work there? Don't they tell their relatives at home, how shitty it is? Why are they going? Why do they risk it? And who am i to judge their decision making? Because people taking this up live in even worse conditions in some of the most abject poverty there is and they have no way to climb up the social ladder that doesn't involve saving some money with this kind of work even at the expense of their physical safety.
  - okr 8y ago
    And here i am confused. So from their perspective, they can achieve something better for themselves, with that risk. And from my perspective, i see it as abuse of their situation, because iam on a different cushion level, where i dont have to risk my life for my job. Good luck to them!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lozenge 8y ago

How do you think people gain this mystical knowledge of how targeting that extra level of throughput will affect their health?

Spooky23 8y ago

Because Taylorism is a blunt instrument that is marginally effective. If you’ve ever worked in an environment with those sorts of incentives, it’s immediately obvious that they are loosely related to productivity and turn into tools of favoritism and control. Amazon isn’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They no doubt concluded that just focusing on objective, easily controlled measurements like hours ultimately made more sense. The workers themselves are disposable anyway. Besides, the workers now have more guaranteed income that can be invested in Amazon stock! They gain the freedom of dollar cost averaging.

mikestew 8y ago

Are the workers completely and totally incapable of deciding for themselves what the proper tradeoff between increased income and whatever decreased health comes from working harder?? Such a decision would be short-lived, as the level of work required to maintain bonus-level status would become the new baseline. Minimum wage + bonus will become your new pay structure.

andrestan 8y ago
Citation needed. This makes no sense. There's always going to be heterogeneity in output per worker in every role. Amazon pays for a baseline of expected output and wants to ensure that within a role they can manage to capture those workers whose productivity will exceed that. To do so, they provide performance bonuses. Not everyone will get the performance bonuses. Amazon is willing to pay the bonuses because the increased output is worth the increased cost. This race to the bottom isn't at all aligned with reasoning and could only happen in a monopsony which Amazon is obviously not. For white collar roles, we don't claim performance tied compensation will lead to this, but you do here. Why?

oh-kumudo 8y ago

I mean you can't have both.

br3n7 8y ago

Yes