4 ms·

You seem to be operating on the assumption that I don't know how stock valuations work. I promise I do. My argument was moral, not economic. I don't actually c

by Kye 6y ago

You seem to be operating on the assumption that I don't know how stock valuations work. I promise I do. My argument was moral, not economic. I don't actually care about Amazon's stock value. I care that Amazon does not pay its workers enough to have a reasonable standard of living. If it's to be a bridge job to something better, the argument usually made for why retail/fast food pays poorly, they should make enough to actually do that. They do not.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> If it's to be a bridge job to something better, the argument usually made for why retail/fast food pays poorly, they should make enough to actually do that The reason retail/fast food pay poorly is because there’s a lot of supply for people willing to do retail/fast food compared to the demand. And also because people aren’t going to pay $50 for some French fries, at that point they would start making food themselves, but that’s the same as “insufficient demand to pay someone enough that it would cause $50 French fries”. I don’t see the purpose of a moral argument when it’s a fact retail businesses earn low single digit profit margins. Walmart can’t pay more even if it wanted to, they would have to raise their prices and then people shop at Target. It looks like it makes a lot of money, but to doesn’t split over all of its employees, and same with every other large retail operation. There’s a couple large ones serving the upper middle class market like Costco and Apple and Nordstrom and Trader Joe’s that might pay a little more, but they are unique and it wouldn’t scale for the whole population. Here’s another example. Two people buy some land, and build two different hotels. Person A pays labor near to as low as people are willing to accept, and Person B pays more. Let’s say person A pays $15 per hour and person B pays $25 per hour. 10 years later, it’s renovation time. Person A has saved more money for renovations so they can make their hotel nicer than person B. Now, customers will prefer to pay person A more than person B, and they will be able to earn more revenue. Now person A has more capital to purchase land. They can get bigger loans because their operating income is higher, afford to pay for more land in a more prime location, and build a new hotel. They can expand and take more market share from person B. You can see where the is is going. Therefore, I don’t see the purpose of discussing the moral imperative for a single business to pay a material amount above market price. Consumers will, by and large, not reward the morally correct businesses. They might pay a $60 premium to Costco, but that’s about it.
- coldpie 6y ago
  The solution to this problem is society-wide regulation, not a reversion back to corporate slavery. We worked hard for the worker protections we have, and we're at risk of losing them (see: "gig workers").
- Kye 6y ago
  I understand capitalism, but I appreciate the effort. Someone reading might not understand the basics. Jeff Bezos finds $1 billion every year to pour into Blue Origin. He said in an interview that he couldn't think of anything to do with his money other than rockets. I assume this is from his scheduled stock sales, but it's liquid nonetheless and Amazon's stock price survives. 1 billion a year split over his ~650k employees is about $1500 a year. This would be a life-changing amount for a lot of those employees. I made big changes on less and set the stage for even more. Amazon has so captured the market that most of it would come back to him anyway, but it ensures some of it flows through the bottom. And it would get people off his ass about it. Win-win.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I can pretty much stake my life on a substantial part of the outcome of that being “why did he only do $1BB?! He’s the world’s richest man (that we can count anyway); he could have easily doubled that and given all his employees an extra $3000!”
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    That $1B into Blue Origin is also paying other people. I also think very few people in the US would be able to make life changing decisions with $1,500, but that’s conjecture and neither here nor there. The point is the solution is legislation affecting all businesses. It’s a waste of resources to focus on individual businesses. Also, I’m not sure which market Amazon has captured. A quick search shows share of online retail revenue at 25% to 35%, and only 6% of all retail. If Amazon ceased operations today, it would be trivial to switch to Walmart/Target/Bestbuy/Costco/Alibaba/eBay/Home Depot/Lowes. Shipping times might suffer for a little bit while the logistics get reallocated, but there’s no moat around Amazon’s retail website or warehouses.

by Kye 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> If it's to be a bridge job to something better, the argument usually made for why retail/fast food pays poorly, they should make enough to actually do that The reason retail/fast food pay poorly is because there’s a lot of supply for people willing to do retail/fast food compared to the demand. And also because people aren’t going to pay $50 for some French fries, at that point they would start making food themselves, but that’s the same as “insufficient demand to pay someone enough that it would cause $50 French fries”. I don’t see the purpose of a moral argument when it’s a fact retail businesses earn low single digit profit margins. Walmart can’t pay more even if it wanted to, they would have to raise their prices and then people shop at Target. It looks like it makes a lot of money, but to doesn’t split over all of its employees, and same with every other large retail operation. There’s a couple large ones serving the upper middle class market like Costco and Apple and Nordstrom and Trader Joe’s that might pay a little more, but they are unique and it wouldn’t scale for the whole population. Here’s another example. Two people buy some land, and build two different hotels. Person A pays labor near to as low as people are willing to accept, and Person B pays more. Let’s say person A pays $15 per hour and person B pays $25 per hour. 10 years later, it’s renovation time. Person A has saved more money for renovations so they can make their hotel nicer than person B. Now, customers will prefer to pay person A more than person B, and they will be able to earn more revenue. Now person A has more capital to purchase land. They can get bigger loans because their operating income is higher, afford to pay for more land in a more prime location, and build a new hotel. They can expand and take more market share from person B. You can see where the is is going. Therefore, I don’t see the purpose of discussing the moral imperative for a single business to pay a material amount above market price. Consumers will, by and large, not reward the morally correct businesses. They might pay a $60 premium to Costco, but that’s about it.

coldpie 6y ago
The solution to this problem is society-wide regulation, not a reversion back to corporate slavery. We worked hard for the worker protections we have, and we're at risk of losing them (see: "gig workers").
Kye 6y ago
I understand capitalism, but I appreciate the effort. Someone reading might not understand the basics. Jeff Bezos finds $1 billion every year to pour into Blue Origin. He said in an interview that he couldn't think of anything to do with his money other than rockets. I assume this is from his scheduled stock sales, but it's liquid nonetheless and Amazon's stock price survives. 1 billion a year split over his ~650k employees is about $1500 a year. This would be a life-changing amount for a lot of those employees. I made big changes on less and set the stage for even more. Amazon has so captured the market that most of it would come back to him anyway, but it ensures some of it flows through the bottom. And it would get people off his ass about it. Win-win.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I can pretty much stake my life on a substantial part of the outcome of that being “why did he only do $1BB?! He’s the world’s richest man (that we can count anyway); he could have easily doubled that and given all his employees an extra $3000!”
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  That $1B into Blue Origin is also paying other people. I also think very few people in the US would be able to make life changing decisions with $1,500, but that’s conjecture and neither here nor there. The point is the solution is legislation affecting all businesses. It’s a waste of resources to focus on individual businesses. Also, I’m not sure which market Amazon has captured. A quick search shows share of online retail revenue at 25% to 35%, and only 6% of all retail. If Amazon ceased operations today, it would be trivial to switch to Walmart/Target/Bestbuy/Costco/Alibaba/eBay/Home Depot/Lowes. Shipping times might suffer for a little bit while the logistics get reallocated, but there’s no moat around Amazon’s retail website or warehouses.