5 ms·

"owners into billionaires on the basis of the cheap labor of their workers, the free labor of their users, and the tax breaks bestowed on them by cities despera

"owners into billionaires on the basis of the cheap labor of their workers, the free labor of their users, and the tax breaks bestowed on them by cities desperate to attract jobs. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet (the parent company name for Google) together are worth more than most every country in the world (except the United States, China, Germany, and Japan). The economic scale and impact of these tech super giants, or, overlords, is greater than that of most so-called sovereign states. Evgeny Morozov describes their dominance as a “hyper-modern form of feudalism.”" How are any of these companies making money on the 'cheap' labor of their workers? Amazon pays all warehouse employees a minimum of $15/hour. This is well above the minimum wage in most areas of the US and outside the US, is a very good wage for doing repetitive tasks that don't even require a high school education. This article doesn't even touch on the censorship aspects of companies like Google and Facebook becoming more and more a reality every day. They both regularly censor opposing view points and are definitely influencing our elections. "Digital platforms are the new watermills, their billionaire owners the new lords, and their thousands of workers and billions of users the new peasants" Not quite. Anyone can still start a website and sell a product without a digital overlord. In fact, there are less barriers to entry than there were a decade ago. Most people choose to give control to companies like Amazon because it's easier and more convenient.

DangitBobby 6y ago
> Digital platforms are the new watermills, their billionaire owners the new lords, and their thousands of workers and billions of users the new peasants Do you have anything to say about this when it comes to, say, AirBnB, Google (play store), Apple (App Store), Amazon (the web marketplace, not AWS) and Uber?
- sacks2k 6y ago
  "AirBnB" You can make good money renting out your place and listing it on Airbnb. Don't like it? You can always use Craigslist or advertise yourself. It's not like airBnb provides nothing. They provide a built-in stream of potential customers, which could take a lot more money and time to obtain on your own. "Google (play store)" "Apple (App Store)" People are only willing to pay a few dollars at most for an app, unless it's very specialized. I have always seen apps as a feature/benefit to a main business, which Google and Apple can't control. "Amazon (the web marketplace, not AWS)" Most businesses on Amazon have a storefront/website and use Amazon to get more business. Amazon may control the marketplace, but they don't have to control your business. This is a choice with many alternatives. "and Uber" Again, this is a choice. Uber was never meant to provide a full-time income for anyone. It's meant as a way to make some extra money on the side. When we have many choices and alternatives, the argument that these companies are the 'new lords' becomes very weak.
  - ngcazz 6y ago
    Quite naive, as this is not only about competing against these mammoth brands but also about how they shifted economic paradigms at the expense of welfare. Airbnb doesn’t “not provide anything” but it does so at the expense of driving up rent and property prices and the mass capture of real estate. Google and Apple most certainly control what apps they allow on their stores, and many businesses are exactly their app. Also, try getting an app out on iOS without going thru the App Store. Re: Amazon, you’re opting in into them getting a cut of your revenue for the privilege of selling through their marketplace with a very slight indication of your brand name. And working Uber may not be a choice for many people who for some reason lost their 9-5 jobs, or have careers that aren’t consistently remunerative etc
pydry 6y ago
>Not quite. Anyone can still start a website and sell a product without a digital overlord. In fact, there are less barriers to entry than there were a decade ago. Most people choose to give control to companies like Amazon because it's easier and more convenient. The story of diapers.com cogently illustrates the fate awaiting those who believe that there are no barriers to competing with amazon: https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-bezos-went-thermonuclear-on-diapers-com.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-be...
- sacks2k 6y ago
  "https://www.vox.com/2017/3/29/15112314/amazon-shutting-down-diapers-com-quidsi-soap-com" https://www.vox.com/2017/3/29/15112314/amazon-shutting-down-... If a 550 million dollar acquisition is my fate after trying to compete with Amazon, I would look forward to it.
  - Allenaz 6y ago
    "... complex networks produce extremes of inequality, winner-take-all or winner-take-most distributions.", you would indeed become richer, society, not quite.
  - pydry 6y ago
    No problem, just try to make sure you have enough cash reserves to be able to keep up with Amazon in a price war and you also started in 2005 back when Amazon was still small and couldn't crush you like a bug.
JSavageOne 6y ago
> $15/hour...is a very good wage $15/hr is nothing in NYC and barely covers rent + food. Meanwhile Amazon made $11.5b in profit last year and Jeff Bezos is worth $144b. Amazon warehouse employees are getting scraps. Recently a warehouse worker in NYC was fired for demanding better health protections in light of COVID-19 [1] But that being said, like you said Amazon warehouse workers aren't the best example of underpaid workers. Walmart and McDonald's employees make way less and often rely on welfare. > Anyone can still start a website and sell a product without a digital overlord Sure that's one positive example where individuals can compete with corporations. Though creating an ecommerce site will not generate any traffic unless you market it, and marketing it will probably entail buying ads on Facebook, Instagram, Google means being beholden to those corporate monopolies. [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/31/21202075/new-york-city-amazon-coronavirus-fired-worker-protest-quarantine-bill-de-blasio-chris-smalls https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/31/21202075/new-york-city-...
runawaybottle 6y ago
I think Goldman’s total assets is around the same as those companies combined. Tech has nothing on Finance. The new masters are the old masters. Combine Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, UBS, etc and see the number you come up with. Tech is child’s play in comparison.
- leoh 6y ago
  On the basis of assets, this might be the case. Could you expand your argument? Goldman counts about 1T in assets on its books whereas Alphabet claims about 273B, but I'm not quite sure that that all means. And very different than market cap. On the basis of market cap, this is not true (but might not have been your point): * Berkshire: 410B * JP Morgan: 261B * Bank of America: 186B * Wells Fargo: 96B * Citi Group: 87B total: 1.040T * Apple: 1,333B * Alphabet: 1,373B * Amazon: 1,200B * Facebook: 600B * Netflix: 200B total: 4.708T
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    I guess I was going by book value, where JPmorgan and Citi alone are at about 2 trillion each. I suppose tech is projected to get there soon enough (or not), we’ll see. Market cap is based on share price, so the current share price could be reflecting that companies like Amazon would literally be worth more one day. That doesn’t mean Amazon is worth more than UBS if we straight up sold each company right now. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. So I guess my larger point would be that I personally don’t think something like a Netflix will be as valuable in 20 years (or certainly not attain the projected value), and even come close to sniffing the total worth of companies in other industries. Within perspective, tech is not as big as we are thinking it is (which is fine, it is and will be reasonably big).
    - phlo 6y ago
      So there's two numbers at play here: balance sheets and market cap. A company's market cap is its share price multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. Using parent's Netflix example, there are approximately 450m Netflix shares, times a market price of $450, for a market cap of approximately USD 200b. So it's fair to say that Netflix, right now, is worth some $200b. Now the market cap can sometimes be misleading: Say you start Runaway Co and issue 100m shares. Each of these shares is worth what the market is willing to pay for it. If I agree to buy one off of you for $100, then we've just spent $100 to make a $10bn company. That's where the trade volume comes in. Netflix is a publicly traded company. Today, some 7.5m Netflix shares were traded at prices ranging from $443 and $456. Given that volume, you can be relatively sure that the market price accurately reflects the company's current value (as seen by the market). On the other hand, a company's balance sheet is listing its assets and liabilities. That's where the huge numbers come in for banks. Let's say a bank receives $1m of deposits from its customers, and uses that money to fund a $1m mortgage. That bank's balance sheet is now $1m. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the bank is now worth $1m -- all of the $1m in mortgage debt that it is owed is offset by $1m in deposits that it owes to its depositors. Instead, the bank would be valued according to the profit it can generate from this. If it charges 2% for the mortgage and pays 1% interest to its depositors, that leaves 1%, or $10k per year. Valued at 10X profit, that bank might be worth $100k or so, even though its balance sheet lists a far bigger number. Which takes us full circle. As you said, Citi has some 2tn assets on its balance sheet. In 2019, it generated some $75bn in revenue from this, and made a profit of some $20m. At approximately $45 per share, its market cap is right around $95b. Netflix, on the other hand, had about $33b on its balance sheet. Way fewer assets, but also way fewer obligations. In 2019, it generated revenues of about $20bn and some $4bn in profits. Investors appear to believe that there is a lot of growth still ahead, because they value the company at $200b.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

DangitBobby 6y ago

> Digital platforms are the new watermills, their billionaire owners the new lords, and their thousands of workers and billions of users the new peasants Do you have anything to say about this when it comes to, say, AirBnB, Google (play store), Apple (App Store), Amazon (the web marketplace, not AWS) and Uber?

sacks2k 6y ago
"AirBnB" You can make good money renting out your place and listing it on Airbnb. Don't like it? You can always use Craigslist or advertise yourself. It's not like airBnb provides nothing. They provide a built-in stream of potential customers, which could take a lot more money and time to obtain on your own. "Google (play store)" "Apple (App Store)" People are only willing to pay a few dollars at most for an app, unless it's very specialized. I have always seen apps as a feature/benefit to a main business, which Google and Apple can't control. "Amazon (the web marketplace, not AWS)" Most businesses on Amazon have a storefront/website and use Amazon to get more business. Amazon may control the marketplace, but they don't have to control your business. This is a choice with many alternatives. "and Uber" Again, this is a choice. Uber was never meant to provide a full-time income for anyone. It's meant as a way to make some extra money on the side. When we have many choices and alternatives, the argument that these companies are the 'new lords' becomes very weak.
- ngcazz 6y ago
  Quite naive, as this is not only about competing against these mammoth brands but also about how they shifted economic paradigms at the expense of welfare. Airbnb doesn’t “not provide anything” but it does so at the expense of driving up rent and property prices and the mass capture of real estate. Google and Apple most certainly control what apps they allow on their stores, and many businesses are exactly their app. Also, try getting an app out on iOS without going thru the App Store. Re: Amazon, you’re opting in into them getting a cut of your revenue for the privilege of selling through their marketplace with a very slight indication of your brand name. And working Uber may not be a choice for many people who for some reason lost their 9-5 jobs, or have careers that aren’t consistently remunerative etc

pydry 6y ago

>Not quite. Anyone can still start a website and sell a product without a digital overlord. In fact, there are less barriers to entry than there were a decade ago. Most people choose to give control to companies like Amazon because it's easier and more convenient. The story of diapers.com cogently illustrates the fate awaiting those who believe that there are no barriers to competing with amazon: https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-bezos-went-thermonuclear-on-diapers-com.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-be...

sacks2k 6y ago
"https://www.vox.com/2017/3/29/15112314/amazon-shutting-down-diapers-com-quidsi-soap-com" https://www.vox.com/2017/3/29/15112314/amazon-shutting-down-... If a 550 million dollar acquisition is my fate after trying to compete with Amazon, I would look forward to it.
- Allenaz 6y ago
  "... complex networks produce extremes of inequality, winner-take-all or winner-take-most distributions.", you would indeed become richer, society, not quite.
- pydry 6y ago
  No problem, just try to make sure you have enough cash reserves to be able to keep up with Amazon in a price war and you also started in 2005 back when Amazon was still small and couldn't crush you like a bug.

JSavageOne 6y ago

> $15/hour...is a very good wage $15/hr is nothing in NYC and barely covers rent + food. Meanwhile Amazon made $11.5b in profit last year and Jeff Bezos is worth $144b. Amazon warehouse employees are getting scraps. Recently a warehouse worker in NYC was fired for demanding better health protections in light of COVID-19 [1] But that being said, like you said Amazon warehouse workers aren't the best example of underpaid workers. Walmart and McDonald's employees make way less and often rely on welfare. > Anyone can still start a website and sell a product without a digital overlord Sure that's one positive example where individuals can compete with corporations. Though creating an ecommerce site will not generate any traffic unless you market it, and marketing it will probably entail buying ads on Facebook, Instagram, Google means being beholden to those corporate monopolies. [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/31/21202075/new-york-city-amazon-coronavirus-fired-worker-protest-quarantine-bill-de-blasio-chris-smalls https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/31/21202075/new-york-city-...

runawaybottle 6y ago

I think Goldman’s total assets is around the same as those companies combined. Tech has nothing on Finance. The new masters are the old masters. Combine Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, UBS, etc and see the number you come up with. Tech is child’s play in comparison.

leoh 6y ago
On the basis of assets, this might be the case. Could you expand your argument? Goldman counts about 1T in assets on its books whereas Alphabet claims about 273B, but I'm not quite sure that that all means. And very different than market cap. On the basis of market cap, this is not true (but might not have been your point): * Berkshire: 410B * JP Morgan: 261B * Bank of America: 186B * Wells Fargo: 96B * Citi Group: 87B total: 1.040T * Apple: 1,333B * Alphabet: 1,373B * Amazon: 1,200B * Facebook: 600B * Netflix: 200B total: 4.708T
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  I guess I was going by book value, where JPmorgan and Citi alone are at about 2 trillion each. I suppose tech is projected to get there soon enough (or not), we’ll see. Market cap is based on share price, so the current share price could be reflecting that companies like Amazon would literally be worth more one day. That doesn’t mean Amazon is worth more than UBS if we straight up sold each company right now. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. So I guess my larger point would be that I personally don’t think something like a Netflix will be as valuable in 20 years (or certainly not attain the projected value), and even come close to sniffing the total worth of companies in other industries. Within perspective, tech is not as big as we are thinking it is (which is fine, it is and will be reasonably big).
  - phlo 6y ago
    So there's two numbers at play here: balance sheets and market cap. A company's market cap is its share price multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. Using parent's Netflix example, there are approximately 450m Netflix shares, times a market price of $450, for a market cap of approximately USD 200b. So it's fair to say that Netflix, right now, is worth some $200b. Now the market cap can sometimes be misleading: Say you start Runaway Co and issue 100m shares. Each of these shares is worth what the market is willing to pay for it. If I agree to buy one off of you for $100, then we've just spent $100 to make a $10bn company. That's where the trade volume comes in. Netflix is a publicly traded company. Today, some 7.5m Netflix shares were traded at prices ranging from $443 and $456. Given that volume, you can be relatively sure that the market price accurately reflects the company's current value (as seen by the market). On the other hand, a company's balance sheet is listing its assets and liabilities. That's where the huge numbers come in for banks. Let's say a bank receives $1m of deposits from its customers, and uses that money to fund a $1m mortgage. That bank's balance sheet is now $1m. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the bank is now worth $1m -- all of the $1m in mortgage debt that it is owed is offset by $1m in deposits that it owes to its depositors. Instead, the bank would be valued according to the profit it can generate from this. If it charges 2% for the mortgage and pays 1% interest to its depositors, that leaves 1%, or $10k per year. Valued at 10X profit, that bank might be worth $100k or so, even though its balance sheet lists a far bigger number. Which takes us full circle. As you said, Citi has some 2tn assets on its balance sheet. In 2019, it generated some $75bn in revenue from this, and made a profit of some $20m. At approximately $45 per share, its market cap is right around $95b. Netflix, on the other hand, had about $33b on its balance sheet. Way fewer assets, but also way fewer obligations. In 2019, it generated revenues of about $20bn and some $4bn in profits. Investors appear to believe that there is a lot of growth still ahead, because they value the company at $200b.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]