6 ms·

Tells you a lot about why "the market" won't always give you the outcome you're looking for. People value delivery more than ever right now. It's literally sa

by habosa 7y ago

Tells you a lot about why "the market" won't always give you the outcome you're looking for. People value delivery more than ever right now. It's literally saving lives. However that value does not result in the people taking risk to provide the delivery getting any more money. As others have mentioned these workers have so little leverage right now because of the massive unemployment. So even if Amazon was to charge customers more, they could totally just pocket the money and the warehouse/delivery/grocery people would have no position. It's so completely unfair. Everyone risking their lives to feed us right now should probably be making 2-3x normal pay (and we should be paying a lot more for their services).

monkeynotes 7y ago
Asking people to pay a lot more when many of the people who will be paying that premium are now unemployed is gonna hurt those who are most in need.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  Which is why the government should step in and impose rent freezes and increase unemployment pay, as they've done in other countries.
de_watcher 7y ago
2-3x normal pay? I once thought that militaries must be paying fortunes for what those people do...
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > I once thought that militaries must be paying fortunes for what those people do... The vast majority of people in modern militaries will never see combat. They are all somewhere relatively safe and merely supporting that small minority of troops who will see combat. Consequently, it is no surprise that pay is fairly low. But in the private security world – people guarding Western and Chinese interests in unstable developing countries – those people are likely to get involved in some shooting, and so their salaries and benefits for loved ones are very high.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Isn't that WWII thinking? The 'tooth to tail' ration has come a long way. Used to be 1:50 or some such. More like 1:10 or 1:8 now? So 'vast majority' is a reach. Still, agreed, private military is nearer 1:1.
    - ebg13 7y ago
      90% is a vast majority.
jumpman500 7y ago
I think what you're asking is more unfair. Amazon should do what's good for the most amount of people which is keeping prices down. There are plenty of people willing to take these jobs, we have record unemployment. Raising wage 2-3x the normal pay is unfair given how many people would take these jobs today. I think it's way to easy for us with nice paying jobs, and secure employment to say that we'd pay more for goods and services. There are so many unemployed people that aren't going to be doing good in a month. These people will want any job and will need cheap goods. If we're going to do some sort of hero compensation for all of our essential works, which I'm in favor of, it should be through the government. Private sector should continue to be fair and act rationally.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "Amazon should do what's good for the most amount of people which is keeping prices down." Amazon could do this by reducing the amount of profit it pockets and giving that share to its employees. Jeff Bezos is the richest man on Earth. He can afford it. In fact, I'd like to see Bezos risk his life commuting to work on unsafe public transit, working in some of Amazon's warehouses where he'd be exposed to other workers who might be sick, handling hundreds of potentially infected packages, and doing deliveries... all this with crappy if any health insurance and virtually no safety net. There's been a long-standing argument that founders deservedly reap great rewards because they are the ones in a company who shoulder the great majority of the risk. Now that's been shown to be an utter and complete lie by this epidemic, hasn't it? Bezos is sitting nice and safe in his mansion, pocketing billions while it's the desperate people who work for him who risk their life for peanuts.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - matz1 7y ago
    Amazon or jeff wouldn't be as it is if they giving out money for nothing.
  - jumpman500 7y ago
    Jeff Bezos is not Amazon. Amazon wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't relentlessly competitive. Workers are not risking their lives for peanuts. They're paid a competitive wage for people that have their skill set. There are lots of people that want their jobs. All essential workers during this crisis deserve some kind of additional compensation. Wealth redistribution should happen through the government. One company can't do it all themselves. They have a responsibility to both their shareholders and their employees. It they abandon one of those responsibilities they won't be able to do the other one effectively.
aphextron 7y ago
>Tells you a lot about why "the market" won't always give you the outcome you're looking for. I think we're seeing the market work exactly as intended. It goes both ways. If workers strike (with solidarity), the market will respond accordingly to find a price at which people are willing to do the work. But no, it won't happen instantly. The capitalists won't just give in and say "You're right guys, we're sorry.". Their hand must be forced, and that is the history of all organized labor.
arcticfox 7y ago
> (and we should be paying a lot more for their services). This makes less sense if you're one of the tens of millions of people making much less right now.
- usrusr 7y ago
  Even for them tripling the cost of deliveries would not make that much of a difference.
laCorona 7y ago
The opposite of the market is government. I'll tell you why that doesn't work- corruption.
- jmcqk6 7y ago
  If you don't think there is corruption in the market, man I got a bridge to sell you.
  - laCorona 7y ago
    But companies go out of business. Government needs a revolution to change.
    - jmcqk6 7y ago
      >Government needs a revolution to change. Again, this is wrong. Governments can change in all sorts of ways. In the current hyper-polarized political reality in the US, it may seem like a revolution is required, but just look at the number of changes that have actually occurred under Trump and Obama. If we could muster the political will to actually address corruption, then it would change, and it wouldn't require a revolution. The problem is people just don't care.

by habosa 7y ago

monkeynotes 7y ago

Asking people to pay a lot more when many of the people who will be paying that premium are now unemployed is gonna hurt those who are most in need.

kiliantics 7y ago
Which is why the government should step in and impose rent freezes and increase unemployment pay, as they've done in other countries.

de_watcher 7y ago

2-3x normal pay? I once thought that militaries must be paying fortunes for what those people do...

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> I once thought that militaries must be paying fortunes for what those people do... The vast majority of people in modern militaries will never see combat. They are all somewhere relatively safe and merely supporting that small minority of troops who will see combat. Consequently, it is no surprise that pay is fairly low. But in the private security world – people guarding Western and Chinese interests in unstable developing countries – those people are likely to get involved in some shooting, and so their salaries and benefits for loved ones are very high.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Isn't that WWII thinking? The 'tooth to tail' ration has come a long way. Used to be 1:50 or some such. More like 1:10 or 1:8 now? So 'vast majority' is a reach. Still, agreed, private military is nearer 1:1.
  - ebg13 7y ago
    90% is a vast majority.

jumpman500 7y ago

I think what you're asking is more unfair. Amazon should do what's good for the most amount of people which is keeping prices down. There are plenty of people willing to take these jobs, we have record unemployment. Raising wage 2-3x the normal pay is unfair given how many people would take these jobs today. I think it's way to easy for us with nice paying jobs, and secure employment to say that we'd pay more for goods and services. There are so many unemployed people that aren't going to be doing good in a month. These people will want any job and will need cheap goods. If we're going to do some sort of hero compensation for all of our essential works, which I'm in favor of, it should be through the government. Private sector should continue to be fair and act rationally.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"Amazon should do what's good for the most amount of people which is keeping prices down." Amazon could do this by reducing the amount of profit it pockets and giving that share to its employees. Jeff Bezos is the richest man on Earth. He can afford it. In fact, I'd like to see Bezos risk his life commuting to work on unsafe public transit, working in some of Amazon's warehouses where he'd be exposed to other workers who might be sick, handling hundreds of potentially infected packages, and doing deliveries... all this with crappy if any health insurance and virtually no safety net. There's been a long-standing argument that founders deservedly reap great rewards because they are the ones in a company who shoulder the great majority of the risk. Now that's been shown to be an utter and complete lie by this epidemic, hasn't it? Bezos is sitting nice and safe in his mansion, pocketing billions while it's the desperate people who work for him who risk their life for peanuts.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- matz1 7y ago
  Amazon or jeff wouldn't be as it is if they giving out money for nothing.
- jumpman500 7y ago
  Jeff Bezos is not Amazon. Amazon wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't relentlessly competitive. Workers are not risking their lives for peanuts. They're paid a competitive wage for people that have their skill set. There are lots of people that want their jobs. All essential workers during this crisis deserve some kind of additional compensation. Wealth redistribution should happen through the government. One company can't do it all themselves. They have a responsibility to both their shareholders and their employees. It they abandon one of those responsibilities they won't be able to do the other one effectively.

aphextron 7y ago

>Tells you a lot about why "the market" won't always give you the outcome you're looking for. I think we're seeing the market work exactly as intended. It goes both ways. If workers strike (with solidarity), the market will respond accordingly to find a price at which people are willing to do the work. But no, it won't happen instantly. The capitalists won't just give in and say "You're right guys, we're sorry.". Their hand must be forced, and that is the history of all organized labor.

arcticfox 7y ago

> (and we should be paying a lot more for their services). This makes less sense if you're one of the tens of millions of people making much less right now.

usrusr 7y ago
Even for them tripling the cost of deliveries would not make that much of a difference.

laCorona 7y ago

The opposite of the market is government. I'll tell you why that doesn't work- corruption.

jmcqk6 7y ago
If you don't think there is corruption in the market, man I got a bridge to sell you.
- laCorona 7y ago
  But companies go out of business. Government needs a revolution to change.
  - jmcqk6 7y ago
    >Government needs a revolution to change. Again, this is wrong. Governments can change in all sorts of ways. In the current hyper-polarized political reality in the US, it may seem like a revolution is required, but just look at the number of changes that have actually occurred under Trump and Obama. If we could muster the political will to actually address corruption, then it would change, and it wouldn't require a revolution. The problem is people just don't care.