19 ms·

> The compensation should reflect the mental and physical stress they put people through. As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation sh

> The compensation should reflect the mental and physical stress they put people through. As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. The fact that Amazon can easily hire as many workers as it wants at $15/hr says that they are paying their employees plenty already. It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for their labor practices rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Market conditions are set by regulation and market participants (there is no such thing as a pure free market except in an economist's textbook). Congress (the Senate specifically, conservatives/republicans) have failed to raise the federal minimum wage ($7.25, unchanged since 2009) to reflect the required wage to survive with increased costs of living (housing, broken healthcare, etc). This caused Senator Sanders to have to shame Amazon into paying a higher wage to Amazon's warehouse workers (which Amazon not only agreed to do, but also stated they would lobby for raising the federal minimum wage as well). Why shouldn't one of the wealthiest companies in the world (a labor market participant) be demonizied for worker abuse, even if it is "legal"? If you don't understand what Amazon fulfillment workers experience, I encourage you to take a vacation day or two and apply for a job at a warehouse as a runner. You'll only need a day or two to appreciate the experience. There is no college course or bootcamp for compassion and empathy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9m7d07k22A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9m7d07k22A (Warehouses: HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)
- mdorazio 7y ago
  1) Because it's not an Amazon problem, it's a fulfillment center/warehouse employee problem that applies to just about every company in the industry I'm aware of. 2) Because Amazon is a for-profit company, not a charity, and its responsibility is not to pay employees more than it has to or give them more benefits/easier working conditions than are necessary. Are you also demonizing your own employer for not paying everyone as much as it possibly can without going bankrupt? 3) Because in many areas where Amazon warehouses operate, they are a significantly better job prospect than other options, working conditions be damned. 4) Because competitive markets don't let companies pay their workers whatever they want to. If you pay your workers too much, a competitor will pay theirs less, pass the savings on to customers, and take market share from you. Amazon is one of the wealthiest companies in the world because it doesn't pay all 600,000+ of its warehouse workers an amazing salary and let them work in better conditions. A lot of people who are angry at Amazon are really angry at the outcome of unchecked capitalism. These are the frustrations that should be applied to voting, not to perfectly legal corporate policies.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    This is a fine plan if you're not the one suffering. Democracy takes time, and you can (and should) use leverage against corporations at the same time when necessary.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Democracy takes time but I don't see any other way, as someone who are not the one suffering, I'm not going to boycott amazon. I like fast shipping and cheap item.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        Yes, that is why you are being criticized: for not caring about other people.
        matz1 7y ago
        Yes, can you see that is ineffective ? you want to make me care, you have to force me to care.
        barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        So we agree that regulation/legislation is the best path forward.
        fake-name 7y ago
        You're literally just saying you're a terrible person. Congratulations, you're literally the problem.
        matz1 7y ago
        How is telling me a terrible person going to be useful ? You have to face reality that like many other people, I like fast shipping and cheap stuff more than amazon worker welfare
- wolco 7y ago
  $7.25.. wow at some point robbery/murder/fraud makes more sense economically.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    “I was always willing to be reasonable until I had to be unreasonable. Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things.”
- noobermin 7y ago
  I will admit that R's don't deserve the full blame here, many Democrats also oppose raising the minimum wage, and Nancy Pelosi, promising she would put a $15 minimum wage on the floor has not brought it up since taking the house. Both parties for the most part have their contingents that oppose raising the federal minimum wage.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
> . It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for Why does it bother you when people empathize with the poor and castigate billion dollar corporations that don't even allow employees enough time to urinate without it harming the employees metrics making them slip towards the back of the rank and closer to being fired? That bothers you...think about that.
- dgzl 7y ago
  You entirely missed their point and instead put words in their mouth.
  - rxhernandez 7y ago
    I dont think the point was missed at all. In fact, I think it was effectively rebutted. I think he's pointing out that not being able to urinate without the risk of being fired is incredibly dehumanizing no matter how much you pay.
  - JudgeWapner 7y ago
    Pissing in a bottle between stock aisles is a "market condition". The market rewards those participants who do not have interrupted labor due to bladder events.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  While I voted you up for the general point, I also think that perhaps cutting off the parent quote where you did is a little unfair: > rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. It's appropriate to "demonize" Amazon, but isn't that observation also correct? Amazon's taking advantage of desperate people, and no matter the job market conditions, it's unethical for them to do so. But doesn't the fact that they can treat workers this way and still have workers suggest they're taking advantage of a systemic problem that needs to be addressed?
  - untog 7y ago
EliRivers 7y ago
Why should it reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market? What's the axiom upon which you stand to say that is the correct way of things?
- tryptophan 7y ago
  If wages are not set by a market, ie not supply and demand, they will be mispriced. Mice-pricing represents a loss of efficiency in the economy, and makes everyone worse off over time. If wages were set lower than equilibrium, obviously the workers would be lose out on this. If wages were set above equilibrium, the consumers would lose out due to the higher costs being transferred over to them. The market price represents the balance between the two interests that is the most efficient. Inb4 some smartass posts "but perfect markets are only in textbooks and this is the real world". That isn't an argument that justifies as to why we should try to move away from the efficient equilibrium.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    "makes everyone worse off" Sounds like this axiom then, is some kind of utilitarian functions; the idea is to do whatever makes the most people better off, in aggregate? That it's ok to screw over someone if a greater amount of benefit then goes to someone else. I'm not convinced, however, that an efficient market is the same as this utilitarianism. Do you have any evidence that efficient markets produce the best outcome for the most people overall? Seems to me that an efficient market could easily consist of a large underclass barely staying alive; why would the most efficient market not have everyone in that situation? Surely that would be perfect efficiency; the entire population being paid just enough to keep going? No surplus, no excess; surely that's far more efficient - but that's in direct conflict with the idea of making everyone better off and giving everyone a nicer life.
  - LeifCarrotson 7y ago
    The market equilibrium price may be the most efficient, but efficiency doesn't care about morals and ethics and "shoulds". Human beings should be treated humanely, ascribed intrinsic value, and moral considerations should be applied to interactions with them. Neither economics nor physics cares about human rights, but systems can be built to accommodate other value systems than the defaults that stem from raw theory. Maybe wages set above equilibrium will result in consumers losing out. That's inefficient, but not necessarily immoral. I strongly believe that utility functions are not evenly distributed. Giving Jeff Bezos $1B and 100k workers $10,000 each is not as good as an outcome where Jeff gets $500M and workers get $15,000 each; it's not even as good as Jeff getting $400M and workers still getting $15,000 each.
somethoughts 7y ago
Tangentially one thing that I've pondered is the the Amazon Fulfillment Centers are typically on the periphery exurban areas such that they will have the benefits of the minimum wage legislation of the urban area but that wage will go a lot farther and they will have a lot shorter commute then if they were located in the urban area itself as a normal retail job would. That seems smart. For instance, $15 an hour goes a lot farther in Tracy and Stockton toward rent or a downpayment than it does in the Mission. Obviously Amazon were to pay more and that would be even better.
- fwip 7y ago
  Stockton, CA is not subject to San Francisco minimum wage laws.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    It doesn't need to be, because Amazon has increased their minimum pay everywhere across the US to $15/hr last year.[0] 0. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-amazon-raising-minimum-wage-20181002-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-amazon-raising-mi...
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Poor people generally don't live in suburban or exurban areas. And if they can't afford decent transportation then they will either face very long commutes or move and be stranded with whatever jobs are in the periphery exurban area.
  - somethoughts 7y ago
    Previously yes, since a high number of retail jobs (i.e. stacking shelves, sorting inventory, etc.) were all done in the core part of the urban area (i.e. think Target or BestBuy directly in the downtown area). With Amazon Fulfillment, the "retail-like" jobs (sorting inventory) can be done where the employee actually can relocate to the periphery and have a traffic free commute. And delivery drivers will be returning the fufillment center so will naturally be returning to the periphery at the end of their shifts.
theothermkn 7y ago
> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. The odiousness of the use of the word "should" has been pointed out elsewhere, and I reiterate it, but there is another point to be made about this analysis: It neglects that Amazon is a monopsony or near-monopsony. As Amazon replaces other supply chains, the demand for supply-chain labor is increasingly concentrated in one buyer of labor, Amazon. We should reasonably expect a distortion in the market to occur wherein Amazon leverages their power to either reduce wages or demand more labor for the equivalent wage. In effect, the market conditions to which the OP appeals are eroded away by Amazon's cornering of this sector of the labor market. $15/hr may be good PR, but it's not a "fair" or "market" wage if Amazon can just burn through employees with adverse working conditions (ostensibly valued at a higher rate in a real market) because of their position as the sole buyer of labor. If we're going to apply market theory to this, we have to go all the way, and not just stop when it suits our purposes.
- malandrew 7y ago
  Amazon is still far from being a monopsony. If you've got evidence suggesting otherwise, please share. Otherwise don't spread falsehoods.
- traek 7y ago
  Amazon is absolutely not a monopsony for unskilled labor, or even for warehouse labor. UPS and FedEx each have roughly the same number of employees as Amazon. Walmart has more than double.
jasonhansel 7y ago
> the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. Why?
- dymk 7y ago
  What other system results in an efficient market?
  - jasonhansel 7y ago
    Is "an efficient market" the only goal?
    - xapata 7y ago
      No. But an efficient market is the best technology we have to allocate society's assets. Maybe someday we'll discover a better technique.
- sneak 7y ago
  Because it is no person’s place to compel, using violence, two consenting adults to alter an agreement between them to which they both voluntarily consent and that harms no third party.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    So in your system, if I pay an employee to climb an unsafe ladder, OSHA has no right to slap me for that because the employee consented? That sounds awful. There would be many preventable deaths and injuries under a system that neuters OSHA; what you're proposing is deeply immoral.
    - sneak 7y ago
      The employee, and no one else, gets to decide what they want for their body. The fact is, OSHA has no moral basis to override or overrule that human being’s own decisions for their own body. What is deeply immoral is third parties using sticks and firearms to overrule that person’s choices. Their body, their choice.
azernik 7y ago
The fact that Amazon can easily hire people at $15/hr at its current abysmal working conditions does not mean that they morally should. The market conditions let Amazon get away with it, and collective action changes market conditions.
- oceanplexian 7y ago
  Costco provides health insurance and pays its employees well, and employee satisfaction is high. Chick-fil-A pays its workers $17 an hour minimum and provides health insurance and benefits. There are plenty of other examples of successful businesses that pay above "market conditions". These places are also high on satisfaction and people are treated like human beings. The problem is working for a business owner who's a prick. That's not the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of Amazon's leadership.
  - vsl 7y ago
    They too pay at market conditions - everybody does. They just value some things (employee churn, loyalty, valuing the job and being nicer to customers etc.) more than they value money. In Europe, Lidl is known to pay cashiers significantly more than others too. It’s damn hard to get a job there, people don’t leave Lidl jobs; consequently Lidl can afford to be picky and hire the best people in the segment. That’s business strategy, and spending money to accomplish their goal, not paying “above” market to be some sort of socialist Samaritans. Amazon doesn’t give a damn about churn, because they don’t need to, and as long as people are freely willing to work for them, as more than enough clearly are, they don’t need to pay more.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    That's not really the same job you would have to compare other Amazon with other warehouse workers (not that amazon works should not have good working conditions. The Q is how does Amazon compare to similar Jobs and in the UK JB Sports seems to have similar problems with hundreds of workers taken to hospital over 4 years. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/29/140-jd-sports-staff-hospital-warehouse-rochdale https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/29/140-jd-spor...
noobermin 7y ago
Given Amazon is such a large part of that market, they do in fact play a large role in the perpetuation of that market. This strike action is in fact those people pushing back both against Amazon and that larger set of conditions they are in.
jtmcmc 7y ago
So I believe it does that at best only imperfectly and further it's neither obvious that compensation should be derived in that fashion nor in my, and many others, opinions is it correct.
klodolph 7y ago
> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. The market has no moral compass. If you decide that the market dictates what we should do, then your actions will reflect the morals of the market, i.e., none. Supply and demand is a statement of what "is", not what "should be". To some approximation.
- rpvnwnkl 7y ago
  It looks like you’re both arguing for the same thing: a higher federal minimum wage.
  - klodolph 7y ago
    That's a leap, for sure. I am not arguing for a higher minimum wage. I didn't mention minimum wage, even obliquely. I am arguing that it is correct to demonize companies for their labor practices.
    - robryan 7y ago
      A minimum wage is far better. Why make every company try to guess what is reasonable on some moral level?
      - tekknik 7y ago
        Increasing minimum wage will do nothing. If you increase the cost of the workers of a good then the cost of the good increases. The idea that we can raise the minimum wage without inflating will never happen, companies are not just going to absorb the costs of increased wages, they will increase their prices to compensate. So the net effect of raising the minimum wage is nothing.
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    Amazon pays above minimum wage, so the only thing increasing minimum wage will do is reduce the job supply and make people even more desperate to keep the Amazon jobs.
viraptor 7y ago
"The market" is not intelligent, moral, or nice to people. "The market" decided that slaves are a pretty efficient way of farming. You can hate the game not the player, but the player is still responsible at some point.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Slavery was by definition the opposite of a market system, because the government enforced a system where people were not free to choose whether to provide their services in return for compensation.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    People could choose. Slaves couldn't. They were literally not considered people (which then "improved" to 3/5th of a person). Or to put it another way, "the market" may decide that the optional strategy is when you have no voice and are an obedient resource. In that case your opinion about it being the opposite of a market system doesn't matter.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Is this what they’re teaching in school these days? Market systems by definition by definition require freedom of transaction on both sides. Slavery is by definition not a market. In a very real sense, it was the industrial market economy of the north that beat the agrarian feudalist economy of the south into submission and freed the slaves. (Also, slaves were never considered “3/5 of a person. The text of the relevant provision read: > Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. In the above equation, slaves must count as a whole “person.” Otherwise, you’re multiplying 3/5 by 3/5. That’s just math and grammar. That’s leaving aside the fact that the whole point of this clause was to limit the power of slave states, and it would’ve been better for purposes of this clause to not count slaves as people at all, to further reduce the power of the south.)
lallysingh 7y ago
> It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for their labor practices rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. That's about as useful a statement as "Thoughts and prayers." To change the labor market you go after the parties you can affect. Amazon is one. There are many others on the demand side. Retaining the workforce would be a much lower % return for the investment.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Or you just raise the minimum wage. We arrived at this point because those with money use it to influence government to their exclusive benefit.
  - influx 7y ago
    Amazon is paying above minimum wage already. What do you suggest they should be paid?
    - IshKebab 7y ago
      It sounds like conditions are more of a problem than pay. Maybe there should be less that enforce regular breaks for workers doing monotonous jobs, and maximum hours. Good luck getting a that kind of law passed in America though. Far too socialist.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      A different answer: Pay them when their labor is actually worth.
      - wallawe 7y ago
        how do you determine that if not at what the market sets it at?
        7y ago
zem 7y ago
> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. nope, that's just using the fact that right now capital has more leverage than labour to pay your workers as little as you can get away with.
munk-a 7y ago
> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. This isn't currently the case by a long shot, compensation is more driven by a monopolist control of the market than anything else. For retail, manufacturing and similar positions (like the amazon warehouse) compensation isn't being allowed to freely vary - businesses have become unreasonably entrenched and therefore retain a strong control of the capital for production, leading to an unbelievably strong wealth inequality. If you asked America who would be willing to take Jeff Bezos's job for a tenth of the compensation (including some stock options to make up for the fact that Bezos actually is paid quite modestly) everyone's hand would shoot up, among those there would be plenty of qualified individuals (including plenty with the aptitude but lacking the prior experience expected) - but for some reason the board of directors hasn't taken this action... This is a sort of "free market" but not the sort of "free market" that I appreciate.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Is there an actual response to the market argument in there? Are you saying Amazon has a monopsony in retail and therefore can drive wages below market levels?
kadendogthing 7y ago
>the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. Yeah. There's no way way it's more complicated than this. If there are other effects not reflected on a simple X/Y axis then I don't wanna know about it!
drup86 7y ago
What would be wrong in lowering immigration numbers of low skilled immigrants to help people stuck in unfortunate Amazon employment like situation above? And yet I never hear any such solution being spoken about in public?
rosser 7y ago
Would it not be even more in Amazon's interest to cultivate labor practices which make their warehouses places people might want, instead of merely being willing, to work? "Oh, the market..." Bullshit. Amazon can afford to let people go to the bathroom without fearing for their jobs. They choose not to.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
Just because you have market leverage to do what you want to desperate people, doesn’t mean you should. If this were a wage dispute, I might agree, but it’s much more than that.
anigbrowl 7y ago
As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. I do not agree that market efficiency should have priority over all other considerations. It seems to me this idea simply reflects the views of those who derive a net benefit from markets, and are oblivious (by accident or choice) to the costs of market failure or impossibility of clearance. Look, supply and demand only work under conditions of perfect competition, which include total knowledge of the market by all participants and no costs for entry or exit. Such conditions obviously do not obtain in many, perhaps most real world contexts. A slavish obedience to these laws is therefore a losing strategy, and indeed in the real world most people take a strategic approach. People who take a strategic approach for themselves while insisting on the supremacy of supply and demand to others (who may or may not be aware of the dichotomy and subsequently credulous of the assertion) are engaged in an act of deception.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
I wonder if a Amazon warehouse workers have tried using diapers & tried expensing them. Whether the claim for approved or rejected, it'd be +1 piece of evidence to highlight you-no-pee-pee shenanigans.
eloisant 7y ago
> It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for their labor practices rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. The thing is that Amazon largely contributed to create those market conditions, by getting the consumer used to free next day delivery (same delivery in some places). And by squeezing their workers like this, forcing other online retailers to follow if they want to stay competitive.
cyphar 7y ago
> It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for their labor practices rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. There's no reason we can't do both. Unfortunately, once you start criticising capitalism (which inevitably leads to these types of employee-employer abuses without unions or other legislation) you get called a communist (incorrectly) and the discussion is over.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Market conditions are set by regulation and market participants (there is no such thing as a pure free market except in an economist's textbook). Congress (the Senate specifically, conservatives/republicans) have failed to raise the federal minimum wage ($7.25, unchanged since 2009) to reflect the required wage to survive with increased costs of living (housing, broken healthcare, etc). This caused Senator Sanders to have to shame Amazon into paying a higher wage to Amazon's warehouse workers (which Amazon not only agreed to do, but also stated they would lobby for raising the federal minimum wage as well). Why shouldn't one of the wealthiest companies in the world (a labor market participant) be demonizied for worker abuse, even if it is "legal"? If you don't understand what Amazon fulfillment workers experience, I encourage you to take a vacation day or two and apply for a job at a warehouse as a runner. You'll only need a day or two to appreciate the experience. There is no college course or bootcamp for compassion and empathy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9m7d07k22A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9m7d07k22A (Warehouses: HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)

mdorazio 7y ago
1) Because it's not an Amazon problem, it's a fulfillment center/warehouse employee problem that applies to just about every company in the industry I'm aware of. 2) Because Amazon is a for-profit company, not a charity, and its responsibility is not to pay employees more than it has to or give them more benefits/easier working conditions than are necessary. Are you also demonizing your own employer for not paying everyone as much as it possibly can without going bankrupt? 3) Because in many areas where Amazon warehouses operate, they are a significantly better job prospect than other options, working conditions be damned. 4) Because competitive markets don't let companies pay their workers whatever they want to. If you pay your workers too much, a competitor will pay theirs less, pass the savings on to customers, and take market share from you. Amazon is one of the wealthiest companies in the world because it doesn't pay all 600,000+ of its warehouse workers an amazing salary and let them work in better conditions. A lot of people who are angry at Amazon are really angry at the outcome of unchecked capitalism. These are the frustrations that should be applied to voting, not to perfectly legal corporate policies.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  This is a fine plan if you're not the one suffering. Democracy takes time, and you can (and should) use leverage against corporations at the same time when necessary.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Democracy takes time but I don't see any other way, as someone who are not the one suffering, I'm not going to boycott amazon. I like fast shipping and cheap item.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
      Yes, that is why you are being criticized: for not caring about other people.
      - matz1 7y ago
        Yes, can you see that is ineffective ? you want to make me care, you have to force me to care.
        barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        So we agree that regulation/legislation is the best path forward.
        fake-name 7y ago
        You're literally just saying you're a terrible person. Congratulations, you're literally the problem.
        matz1 7y ago
        How is telling me a terrible person going to be useful ? You have to face reality that like many other people, I like fast shipping and cheap stuff more than amazon worker welfare
wolco 7y ago
$7.25.. wow at some point robbery/murder/fraud makes more sense economically.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  “I was always willing to be reasonable until I had to be unreasonable. Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things.”
noobermin 7y ago
I will admit that R's don't deserve the full blame here, many Democrats also oppose raising the minimum wage, and Nancy Pelosi, promising she would put a $15 minimum wage on the floor has not brought it up since taking the house. Both parties for the most part have their contingents that oppose raising the federal minimum wage.

JudgeWapner 7y ago

> . It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for Why does it bother you when people empathize with the poor and castigate billion dollar corporations that don't even allow employees enough time to urinate without it harming the employees metrics making them slip towards the back of the rank and closer to being fired? That bothers you...think about that.

dgzl 7y ago
You entirely missed their point and instead put words in their mouth.
- rxhernandez 7y ago
  I dont think the point was missed at all. In fact, I think it was effectively rebutted. I think he's pointing out that not being able to urinate without the risk of being fired is incredibly dehumanizing no matter how much you pay.
- JudgeWapner 7y ago
  Pissing in a bottle between stock aisles is a "market condition". The market rewards those participants who do not have interrupted labor due to bladder events.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
While I voted you up for the general point, I also think that perhaps cutting off the parent quote where you did is a little unfair: > rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. It's appropriate to "demonize" Amazon, but isn't that observation also correct? Amazon's taking advantage of desperate people, and no matter the job market conditions, it's unethical for them to do so. But doesn't the fact that they can treat workers this way and still have workers suggest they're taking advantage of a systemic problem that needs to be addressed?
- untog 7y ago

EliRivers 7y ago

Why should it reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market? What's the axiom upon which you stand to say that is the correct way of things?

tryptophan 7y ago
If wages are not set by a market, ie not supply and demand, they will be mispriced. Mice-pricing represents a loss of efficiency in the economy, and makes everyone worse off over time. If wages were set lower than equilibrium, obviously the workers would be lose out on this. If wages were set above equilibrium, the consumers would lose out due to the higher costs being transferred over to them. The market price represents the balance between the two interests that is the most efficient. Inb4 some smartass posts "but perfect markets are only in textbooks and this is the real world". That isn't an argument that justifies as to why we should try to move away from the efficient equilibrium.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  "makes everyone worse off" Sounds like this axiom then, is some kind of utilitarian functions; the idea is to do whatever makes the most people better off, in aggregate? That it's ok to screw over someone if a greater amount of benefit then goes to someone else. I'm not convinced, however, that an efficient market is the same as this utilitarianism. Do you have any evidence that efficient markets produce the best outcome for the most people overall? Seems to me that an efficient market could easily consist of a large underclass barely staying alive; why would the most efficient market not have everyone in that situation? Surely that would be perfect efficiency; the entire population being paid just enough to keep going? No surplus, no excess; surely that's far more efficient - but that's in direct conflict with the idea of making everyone better off and giving everyone a nicer life.
- LeifCarrotson 7y ago
  The market equilibrium price may be the most efficient, but efficiency doesn't care about morals and ethics and "shoulds". Human beings should be treated humanely, ascribed intrinsic value, and moral considerations should be applied to interactions with them. Neither economics nor physics cares about human rights, but systems can be built to accommodate other value systems than the defaults that stem from raw theory. Maybe wages set above equilibrium will result in consumers losing out. That's inefficient, but not necessarily immoral. I strongly believe that utility functions are not evenly distributed. Giving Jeff Bezos $1B and 100k workers $10,000 each is not as good as an outcome where Jeff gets $500M and workers get $15,000 each; it's not even as good as Jeff getting $400M and workers still getting $15,000 each.

somethoughts 7y ago

Tangentially one thing that I've pondered is the the Amazon Fulfillment Centers are typically on the periphery exurban areas such that they will have the benefits of the minimum wage legislation of the urban area but that wage will go a lot farther and they will have a lot shorter commute then if they were located in the urban area itself as a normal retail job would. That seems smart. For instance, $15 an hour goes a lot farther in Tracy and Stockton toward rent or a downpayment than it does in the Mission. Obviously Amazon were to pay more and that would be even better.

fwip 7y ago
Stockton, CA is not subject to San Francisco minimum wage laws.
- filoleg 7y ago
  It doesn't need to be, because Amazon has increased their minimum pay everywhere across the US to $15/hr last year.[0] 0. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-amazon-raising-minimum-wage-20181002-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-amazon-raising-mi...
bobthepanda 7y ago
Poor people generally don't live in suburban or exurban areas. And if they can't afford decent transportation then they will either face very long commutes or move and be stranded with whatever jobs are in the periphery exurban area.
- somethoughts 7y ago
  Previously yes, since a high number of retail jobs (i.e. stacking shelves, sorting inventory, etc.) were all done in the core part of the urban area (i.e. think Target or BestBuy directly in the downtown area). With Amazon Fulfillment, the "retail-like" jobs (sorting inventory) can be done where the employee actually can relocate to the periphery and have a traffic free commute. And delivery drivers will be returning the fufillment center so will naturally be returning to the periphery at the end of their shifts.

theothermkn 7y ago

> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. The odiousness of the use of the word "should" has been pointed out elsewhere, and I reiterate it, but there is another point to be made about this analysis: It neglects that Amazon is a monopsony or near-monopsony. As Amazon replaces other supply chains, the demand for supply-chain labor is increasingly concentrated in one buyer of labor, Amazon. We should reasonably expect a distortion in the market to occur wherein Amazon leverages their power to either reduce wages or demand more labor for the equivalent wage. In effect, the market conditions to which the OP appeals are eroded away by Amazon's cornering of this sector of the labor market. $15/hr may be good PR, but it's not a "fair" or "market" wage if Amazon can just burn through employees with adverse working conditions (ostensibly valued at a higher rate in a real market) because of their position as the sole buyer of labor. If we're going to apply market theory to this, we have to go all the way, and not just stop when it suits our purposes.

malandrew 7y ago
Amazon is still far from being a monopsony. If you've got evidence suggesting otherwise, please share. Otherwise don't spread falsehoods.
traek 7y ago
Amazon is absolutely not a monopsony for unskilled labor, or even for warehouse labor. UPS and FedEx each have roughly the same number of employees as Amazon. Walmart has more than double.

jasonhansel 7y ago

> the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. Why?

dymk 7y ago
What other system results in an efficient market?
- jasonhansel 7y ago
  Is "an efficient market" the only goal?
  - xapata 7y ago
    No. But an efficient market is the best technology we have to allocate society's assets. Maybe someday we'll discover a better technique.
sneak 7y ago
Because it is no person’s place to compel, using violence, two consenting adults to alter an agreement between them to which they both voluntarily consent and that harms no third party.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  So in your system, if I pay an employee to climb an unsafe ladder, OSHA has no right to slap me for that because the employee consented? That sounds awful. There would be many preventable deaths and injuries under a system that neuters OSHA; what you're proposing is deeply immoral.
  - sneak 7y ago
    The employee, and no one else, gets to decide what they want for their body. The fact is, OSHA has no moral basis to override or overrule that human being’s own decisions for their own body. What is deeply immoral is third parties using sticks and firearms to overrule that person’s choices. Their body, their choice.

azernik 7y ago

The fact that Amazon can easily hire people at $15/hr at its current abysmal working conditions does not mean that they morally should. The market conditions let Amazon get away with it, and collective action changes market conditions.

oceanplexian 7y ago
Costco provides health insurance and pays its employees well, and employee satisfaction is high. Chick-fil-A pays its workers $17 an hour minimum and provides health insurance and benefits. There are plenty of other examples of successful businesses that pay above "market conditions". These places are also high on satisfaction and people are treated like human beings. The problem is working for a business owner who's a prick. That's not the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of Amazon's leadership.
- vsl 7y ago
  They too pay at market conditions - everybody does. They just value some things (employee churn, loyalty, valuing the job and being nicer to customers etc.) more than they value money. In Europe, Lidl is known to pay cashiers significantly more than others too. It’s damn hard to get a job there, people don’t leave Lidl jobs; consequently Lidl can afford to be picky and hire the best people in the segment. That’s business strategy, and spending money to accomplish their goal, not paying “above” market to be some sort of socialist Samaritans. Amazon doesn’t give a damn about churn, because they don’t need to, and as long as people are freely willing to work for them, as more than enough clearly are, they don’t need to pay more.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  That's not really the same job you would have to compare other Amazon with other warehouse workers (not that amazon works should not have good working conditions. The Q is how does Amazon compare to similar Jobs and in the UK JB Sports seems to have similar problems with hundreds of workers taken to hospital over 4 years. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/29/140-jd-sports-staff-hospital-warehouse-rochdale https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/29/140-jd-spor...

noobermin 7y ago

Given Amazon is such a large part of that market, they do in fact play a large role in the perpetuation of that market. This strike action is in fact those people pushing back both against Amazon and that larger set of conditions they are in.

jtmcmc 7y ago

So I believe it does that at best only imperfectly and further it's neither obvious that compensation should be derived in that fashion nor in my, and many others, opinions is it correct.

klodolph 7y ago

> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. The market has no moral compass. If you decide that the market dictates what we should do, then your actions will reflect the morals of the market, i.e., none. Supply and demand is a statement of what "is", not what "should be". To some approximation.

rpvnwnkl 7y ago
It looks like you’re both arguing for the same thing: a higher federal minimum wage.
- klodolph 7y ago
  That's a leap, for sure. I am not arguing for a higher minimum wage. I didn't mention minimum wage, even obliquely. I am arguing that it is correct to demonize companies for their labor practices.
  - robryan 7y ago
    A minimum wage is far better. Why make every company try to guess what is reasonable on some moral level?
    - tekknik 7y ago
      Increasing minimum wage will do nothing. If you increase the cost of the workers of a good then the cost of the good increases. The idea that we can raise the minimum wage without inflating will never happen, companies are not just going to absorb the costs of increased wages, they will increase their prices to compensate. So the net effect of raising the minimum wage is nothing.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  Amazon pays above minimum wage, so the only thing increasing minimum wage will do is reduce the job supply and make people even more desperate to keep the Amazon jobs.

viraptor 7y ago

"The market" is not intelligent, moral, or nice to people. "The market" decided that slaves are a pretty efficient way of farming. You can hate the game not the player, but the player is still responsible at some point.

rayiner 7y ago
Slavery was by definition the opposite of a market system, because the government enforced a system where people were not free to choose whether to provide their services in return for compensation.
- viraptor 7y ago
  People could choose. Slaves couldn't. They were literally not considered people (which then "improved" to 3/5th of a person). Or to put it another way, "the market" may decide that the optional strategy is when you have no voice and are an obedient resource. In that case your opinion about it being the opposite of a market system doesn't matter.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Is this what they’re teaching in school these days? Market systems by definition by definition require freedom of transaction on both sides. Slavery is by definition not a market. In a very real sense, it was the industrial market economy of the north that beat the agrarian feudalist economy of the south into submission and freed the slaves. (Also, slaves were never considered “3/5 of a person. The text of the relevant provision read: > Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. In the above equation, slaves must count as a whole “person.” Otherwise, you’re multiplying 3/5 by 3/5. That’s just math and grammar. That’s leaving aside the fact that the whole point of this clause was to limit the power of slave states, and it would’ve been better for purposes of this clause to not count slaves as people at all, to further reduce the power of the south.)

lallysingh 7y ago

> It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for their labor practices rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. That's about as useful a statement as "Thoughts and prayers." To change the labor market you go after the parties you can affect. Amazon is one. There are many others on the demand side. Retaining the workforce would be a much lower % return for the investment.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Or you just raise the minimum wage. We arrived at this point because those with money use it to influence government to their exclusive benefit.
- influx 7y ago
  Amazon is paying above minimum wage already. What do you suggest they should be paid?
  - IshKebab 7y ago
    It sounds like conditions are more of a problem than pay. Maybe there should be less that enforce regular breaks for workers doing monotonous jobs, and maximum hours. Good luck getting a that kind of law passed in America though. Far too socialist.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    A different answer: Pay them when their labor is actually worth.
    - wallawe 7y ago
      how do you determine that if not at what the market sets it at?
      - 7y ago

zem 7y ago

> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. nope, that's just using the fact that right now capital has more leverage than labour to pay your workers as little as you can get away with.

munk-a 7y ago

> As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. This isn't currently the case by a long shot, compensation is more driven by a monopolist control of the market than anything else. For retail, manufacturing and similar positions (like the amazon warehouse) compensation isn't being allowed to freely vary - businesses have become unreasonably entrenched and therefore retain a strong control of the capital for production, leading to an unbelievably strong wealth inequality. If you asked America who would be willing to take Jeff Bezos's job for a tenth of the compensation (including some stock options to make up for the fact that Bezos actually is paid quite modestly) everyone's hand would shoot up, among those there would be plenty of qualified individuals (including plenty with the aptitude but lacking the prior experience expected) - but for some reason the board of directors hasn't taken this action... This is a sort of "free market" but not the sort of "free market" that I appreciate.

rayiner 7y ago
Is there an actual response to the market argument in there? Are you saying Amazon has a monopsony in retail and therefore can drive wages below market levels?

kadendogthing 7y ago

>the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. Yeah. There's no way way it's more complicated than this. If there are other effects not reflected on a simple X/Y axis then I don't wanna know about it!

drup86 7y ago

What would be wrong in lowering immigration numbers of low skilled immigrants to help people stuck in unfortunate Amazon employment like situation above? And yet I never hear any such solution being spoken about in public?

rosser 7y ago

Would it not be even more in Amazon's interest to cultivate labor practices which make their warehouses places people might want, instead of merely being willing, to work? "Oh, the market..." Bullshit. Amazon can afford to let people go to the bathroom without fearing for their jobs. They choose not to.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago

Just because you have market leverage to do what you want to desperate people, doesn’t mean you should. If this were a wage dispute, I might agree, but it’s much more than that.

anigbrowl 7y ago

As with all companies paying workers to do a job, the compensation should reflect the confluence of supply and demand in the market. I do not agree that market efficiency should have priority over all other considerations. It seems to me this idea simply reflects the views of those who derive a net benefit from markets, and are oblivious (by accident or choice) to the costs of market failure or impossibility of clearance. Look, supply and demand only work under conditions of perfect competition, which include total knowledge of the market by all participants and no costs for entry or exit. Such conditions obviously do not obtain in many, perhaps most real world contexts. A slavish obedience to these laws is therefore a losing strategy, and indeed in the real world most people take a strategic approach. People who take a strategic approach for themselves while insisting on the supremacy of supply and demand to others (who may or may not be aware of the dichotomy and subsequently credulous of the assertion) are engaged in an act of deception.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

I wonder if a Amazon warehouse workers have tried using diapers & tried expensing them. Whether the claim for approved or rejected, it'd be +1 piece of evidence to highlight you-no-pee-pee shenanigans.

eloisant 7y ago

> It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for their labor practices rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. The thing is that Amazon largely contributed to create those market conditions, by getting the consumer used to free next day delivery (same delivery in some places). And by squeezing their workers like this, forcing other online retailers to follow if they want to stay competitive.

cyphar 7y ago

> It bothers me that people are constantly demonizing Amazon for their labor practices rather than demonizing the market conditions that have led to Amazon warehouses being a place people are willing to work. There's no reason we can't do both. Unfortunately, once you start criticising capitalism (which inevitably leads to these types of employee-employer abuses without unions or other legislation) you get called a communist (incorrectly) and the discussion is over.