6 ms·

What would it effect Bezos Net Worth to double the warehouse operatives hourly rate to $22?

by SmileyRedBall 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- SmileyRedBall 7y ago
  > Not more much than his divorce. Haaaa..aaaar :]
honopu 7y ago
not relevant, free market, they decide to work there, or not.
- SmileyRedBall 7y ago
  > not relevant, free market, they decide to work there, or not .. Yea they can decide to move to the next low-pay job, zero-hour contract, no benefits, wages barely pays the rent, on food stamps ..
  - switch007 7y ago
    Exactly. The implicit argument is that there is always some magical high-paying job with awesome benefits just round the corner if they just simply make the simple decision of switching jobs and/or pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Right...
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Rising tides lift all boats. The largest employers changing their hiring practices forces other employers to change as well, to remain somewhat competitive.
- bancars 7y ago
  That’s an awfully easy position to take when you don’t have to work at an Amazon warehouse. How many times have you been fired for using the bathroom?
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  A free market would allow the employees to unionise to negotiate more effectively the employee side, like Amazon the company uses many people collectively to negotiate the employer side. But Amazon is anti-union and spends money to that effect. If the free market is a fair market, unionising wouldn't make any difference as the negotiated rates would already be fair and couldn't be any more fair. Amazon wouldn't be spending money to block union efforts, because that would be wasted money. Therefore either this isn't free market, and your comment is wrong (not free market), or this is free market but it isn't fair so your comment is wrong (free market, yet still relevant).
agsamek 7y ago
Yep. The situation is similar to what Ford had. Salary increase might happen if they have a shortage of candidates. But will there be a shortage? Or are they just the best employer for a lot of people?
- mparramon 7y ago
  Very relevant film about the topic: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5688932/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5688932/
steveads 7y ago
Some back of the napkin math: 650,000 Amazon workers. Let's say 600,000 are min(ish) wage and get an increase from $11/hr to $22/hr. That's a 13.2B increase per year. Jeff Bezo's net worth is 165B. Jeff Bezo's Net Worth drops 8% after one year.
- OscarCunningham 7y ago
  If people expected Amazon to make a loss long-term then its share price would drop to zero immediately, taking most of Bezos' wealth with it.
- jerf 7y ago
  Jeff's net worth isn't in cash. It's going to be affected much more strangely than your analysis suggests. If Amazon has to raise its labor costs that much, Wall Street will react in a way that is difficult to predict the magnitude, but easy to predict the direction. Normally I'd suggest analyzing that 13.2B in terms of the profits of the company, which for instance last Jan 2019 was ~$3 billion, which if projected out for the year means you'd be proposing a pay raise larger than the profit margin for the company, which is definitely going to affect the stock price. But Amazon is a weird case where most people think that they can just turn on the spigots anytime they really want to just make money, so it's maybe not the easiest analysis. But for most companies, they make less profit than people think, especially if they're looking at revenue numbers, and a lot of people tend to suggest things that would make a 6% profitable company (not a terribly uncommon number) become a -25% profitable company or something. Even if you tip all executive compensation back into profit, that doesn't usually do much for these large companies.
  - steveads 7y ago
    You're totally right. Just wanted a quick easy way to estimate the minimum hit he'd take in an admittedly fictitious world where net wealth isn't tied to the company's stock price.
  - fao_ 7y ago
    If a company cannot pay it's workers properly then, to be honest, it really shouldn't exist.
notatoad 7y ago
What would it effect bezos's net worth to halve the required number of items picked per hour but keep the pay the same? Pay should be determined by the market, decent working conditions are what we should be fighting for. Amazon workers aren't poorly compensated, they're just working shitty jobs regardless of the compensation. Paying people more doesn't make abusing them okay.
- electrograv 7y ago
  If each employee was paid the same to pick half the items, then they’re effectively being paid twice as much to do the same amount of work. Amazon would have to hire twice the workers (if not more) to fulfill their order volume, which means shipping items becomes more expensive. So the real question is: Who is going to pay the bill? And the problem I see here is, whoever you ask this, the answer is always “not me!” Everyone wants to reap the benefits of cheap labor (e.g. cheap, fast shipping), while proclaiming they want to treat the labor force well, but without a willingness to actually “put their money where their mouth is” and pay for it when it actually comes down to it. For example: If you could willingly add 50% to the cost of every Amazon purchase if it gave workers better conditions, would you? If your first reaction to that is “Hey, that’s not my problem! The [government/market/unions/etc.] should have to solve that!” ... then yeah, we’ll the thing is that’s what everybody says when asked these sorts of problems.
dlgeek 7y ago
They have a $15 hour/minimum, so $22 isn't double.

What would it effect Bezos Net Worth to double the warehouse operatives hourly rate to $22?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

SmileyRedBall 7y ago
> Not more much than his divorce. Haaaa..aaaar :]

honopu 7y ago

not relevant, free market, they decide to work there, or not.

SmileyRedBall 7y ago
> not relevant, free market, they decide to work there, or not .. Yea they can decide to move to the next low-pay job, zero-hour contract, no benefits, wages barely pays the rent, on food stamps ..
- switch007 7y ago
  Exactly. The implicit argument is that there is always some magical high-paying job with awesome benefits just round the corner if they just simply make the simple decision of switching jobs and/or pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Right...
- bduerst 7y ago
  Rising tides lift all boats. The largest employers changing their hiring practices forces other employers to change as well, to remain somewhat competitive.
bancars 7y ago
That’s an awfully easy position to take when you don’t have to work at an Amazon warehouse. How many times have you been fired for using the bathroom?
jodrellblank 7y ago
A free market would allow the employees to unionise to negotiate more effectively the employee side, like Amazon the company uses many people collectively to negotiate the employer side. But Amazon is anti-union and spends money to that effect. If the free market is a fair market, unionising wouldn't make any difference as the negotiated rates would already be fair and couldn't be any more fair. Amazon wouldn't be spending money to block union efforts, because that would be wasted money. Therefore either this isn't free market, and your comment is wrong (not free market), or this is free market but it isn't fair so your comment is wrong (free market, yet still relevant).

agsamek 7y ago

Yep. The situation is similar to what Ford had. Salary increase might happen if they have a shortage of candidates. But will there be a shortage? Or are they just the best employer for a lot of people?

mparramon 7y ago
Very relevant film about the topic: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5688932/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5688932/

steveads 7y ago

Some back of the napkin math: 650,000 Amazon workers. Let's say 600,000 are min(ish) wage and get an increase from $11/hr to $22/hr. That's a 13.2B increase per year. Jeff Bezo's net worth is 165B. Jeff Bezo's Net Worth drops 8% after one year.

OscarCunningham 7y ago
If people expected Amazon to make a loss long-term then its share price would drop to zero immediately, taking most of Bezos' wealth with it.
jerf 7y ago
Jeff's net worth isn't in cash. It's going to be affected much more strangely than your analysis suggests. If Amazon has to raise its labor costs that much, Wall Street will react in a way that is difficult to predict the magnitude, but easy to predict the direction. Normally I'd suggest analyzing that 13.2B in terms of the profits of the company, which for instance last Jan 2019 was ~$3 billion, which if projected out for the year means you'd be proposing a pay raise larger than the profit margin for the company, which is definitely going to affect the stock price. But Amazon is a weird case where most people think that they can just turn on the spigots anytime they really want to just make money, so it's maybe not the easiest analysis. But for most companies, they make less profit than people think, especially if they're looking at revenue numbers, and a lot of people tend to suggest things that would make a 6% profitable company (not a terribly uncommon number) become a -25% profitable company or something. Even if you tip all executive compensation back into profit, that doesn't usually do much for these large companies.
- steveads 7y ago
  You're totally right. Just wanted a quick easy way to estimate the minimum hit he'd take in an admittedly fictitious world where net wealth isn't tied to the company's stock price.
- fao_ 7y ago
  If a company cannot pay it's workers properly then, to be honest, it really shouldn't exist.

notatoad 7y ago

What would it effect bezos's net worth to halve the required number of items picked per hour but keep the pay the same? Pay should be determined by the market, decent working conditions are what we should be fighting for. Amazon workers aren't poorly compensated, they're just working shitty jobs regardless of the compensation. Paying people more doesn't make abusing them okay.

electrograv 7y ago
If each employee was paid the same to pick half the items, then they’re effectively being paid twice as much to do the same amount of work. Amazon would have to hire twice the workers (if not more) to fulfill their order volume, which means shipping items becomes more expensive. So the real question is: Who is going to pay the bill? And the problem I see here is, whoever you ask this, the answer is always “not me!” Everyone wants to reap the benefits of cheap labor (e.g. cheap, fast shipping), while proclaiming they want to treat the labor force well, but without a willingness to actually “put their money where their mouth is” and pay for it when it actually comes down to it. For example: If you could willingly add 50% to the cost of every Amazon purchase if it gave workers better conditions, would you? If your first reaction to that is “Hey, that’s not my problem! The [government/market/unions/etc.] should have to solve that!” ... then yeah, we’ll the thing is that’s what everybody says when asked these sorts of problems.

dlgeek 7y ago

They have a $15 hour/minimum, so $22 isn't double.