7 ms·

> Despite a starting wage well above the federal minimum, the company is dragging down pay in the logistics industry and bracing for a fight with unions. Sadly

> Despite a starting wage well above the federal minimum, the company is dragging down pay in the logistics industry and bracing for a fight with unions. Sadly, the author doesn't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Consumers should not expect slave labor, but they would happily consume it if regulation did not prevent it. Disclosure: I donate to progressive efforts in this space to drag the minimum wage up, which has not kept pace with inflation for many years.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Have you considered why there is inflation which always drives down real wages?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Monetary policy in an economy addicted to debt and the “need” for growth. Easier to steal value from the working class with inflation (ask your average citizen about the impact of expansionary monetary policy on their personal net worth, the result is likely deer in headlights) than appropriately tax the wealthiest and their wealth/assets. Thread topic for another day.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Monetary policy in an economy addicted to debt. Yes, agreed. > properly tax the wealthiest and their wealth/assets. Accounting gimmicks don't solve scarcity. You could expropriate all the wealth in the world, it wouldn't feed people for a year. You can't eat money. > Thread topic for another day. It is directly relevant to this discussion of the cost of labor and the standard of living that a laborer can expect.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Many developed countries have a reasonable minimum/living wage, you can’t wave scarcity as an excuse. Consumers can pay a bit more, and Jeff Bezos can be a bit less wealthy. World’s smallest violin. > You could expropriate all the wealth in the world, it wouldn't feed people for a year. You can't eat money. The wealth exists. Tax it. This isn’t about monetary inflation (as your quote attempts to conflate with wealth), it’s about redistributing existing and future wealth (not just income, wage and equity alike).
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Consumers can pay a bit more, and Jeff Bezos can be a bit less wealthy. Bezos' wealth is in amazon infrastructure/capital goods which delivers consumer goods to millions of people a day, and crucially, cannot be converted to food. How are you proposing to transform the market capitalization of amazon into a higher standard of living for the average person? > Many developed countries have a reasonable minimum/living wage, According to whom? I'm sure there are millions of wage laborers in those countries who would prefer to make more money and consider their preference to be entirely reasonable. Workers in the United States have a reasonable living wage, therefore nothing need change. > World’s smallest violin. Right, read an economics textbook please. People can't eat money. (responding to your edit) > The wealth exists. Tax it. So return on investment goes down, which lowers marginal profitability, meaning fewer firms are solvent. Then people have fewer places to work and fewer places to buy goods. People who worked at those businesses are now out of work so the few remaining businesses have more labor to choose from, justifying them paying even less. Everyone who doesn't get a job can just get public assistance, meaning they aren't contributing with their labor but they still bid for goods, causing the price of goods to go up. Thats a terrible idea. > This isn’t about monetary inflation (as your quote attempts to conflate with wealth), Per Krugman, monetary inflation is intended to drive down real wages. > it’s about redistributing existing and future wealth You can redistribute it so people can have a higher standard of living momentarily by purchasing consumption items. Thats exchanging capital for consumer goods, which results in a lower standard of living over time because there is less capital. Additionally the profits from those sales of consumer goods accrue to the people who still hold productive capital, i.e. the wealthy. You're describing a process that causes the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
LordDragonfang 6y ago
You know what else comes out of the pocket of the consumer? Paying for government assistance for people employed full time by a company. >more than 4,000 employees are on food stamps in nine states studied by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Only Walmart, McDonald’s and two dollar-store chains have more workers requiring such assistance, according to the report, which said 70% of recipients work full-time. In other words, Amazon is costing you, the taxpayer, money by not paying their workers a living wage.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > You know what else comes out of the pocket of the consumer? Paying for government assistance for people employed full time by a company. I think you mean "taxpayer" > In other words, Amazon is costing you, the taxpayer, money by not paying their workers a living wage. Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs. > living wage. what constitutes a "living wage" is dependent on the cost of consumer goods which is in turn dependent on the cost of labor. You're not going to escape the fact that some people's labor isn't worth enough to earn them the standard of living that you or they would prefer by wishful thinking or statutory fiat. You can, however, limit their options and distort the market in a vicious circle of economically ignorant mandates.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    "Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs." That would be better. I would MUCH rather pay for them to be in school instead of just paying part of Bezos' and other Amazon investors operating costs. Shit I wish I could have a buch of employees and get someone else to pay for them. What a great idea! Why doesn't everyone do that? I mean except for the employees of course. They can't have companies staffed by employees they don't pay for. Duh. Only Amazon and Walmart can have that, obvs. I mean who would be their employees? You? Not me. I guess we need something like a seperate class or group of people who have to be the underpaid employees so that the rest of us can enjoy being the employers without paying for it. We used to have that back in the good old days... It's almost like this is a stupid argument that there is no way to excuse, and no amount of indirect smoke & mirrors or denial gets around that, and anyone even trying deserves to be among the first people rounded up for the new press gangs they think are so fair a great.
ardy42 6y ago
> Sadly, the author doesn't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Those pesky abolitionists apparently missed that too. Don't you think they'd have given up had they realized what emancipation would have done to the price of their clothing?
- charlesu 6y ago
  Same thing with child labor. Apparently it being outlawed was the end of American industry.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Actually industry is what made it possible to outlaw child labor by increasing the productivity of the individual worker so they could afford to live without putting their children to work. You can see this where non-industrialized countries still have subsistence level families that have as many children as possible in order that they may work to support the family. It's not because they are backwards, its because they have no other option because of the lack of capital.
    - charlesu 6y ago
      But the children I’m referring to were working in factories in a rapidly industrializing country.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Yes, eventually the country industrialized to the point that people could afford to live and raise a family without sending those children to work in a factory. They did have to wait for patents on the machines to expire so that more than a handful of wealthy individuals could own capital goods.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur.
charlesu 6y ago
More often than not shareholders and management can just pocket the difference not consumers. Levi jeans today are low quality compared to a few decades ago but they aren’t any cheaper. Same thing with colleges. Low wage adjuncts as far as the eye can see, but higher education has never been more expensive.
- gruez 6y ago
  >Levi jeans today are low quality compared to a few decades ago but they aren’t any cheaper. A simple search contradicts your claim: nytimes says: "A pair of Levi's 501 jeans cost $50 in 1998, and $46 in 2008"[1] >Same thing with colleges. Low wage adjuncts as far as the eye can see, but higher education has never been more expensive. The problem here are price insensitive consumers given tons of free money by the government (in the form of guaranteed student loans, regardless of ability to pay back). If you were given the gift of one free TV of your choice (valued up to $2000), your purchasing decision would be very different than if you were simply given $2000 in cash. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/fashion/29PRICE.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/fashion/29PRICE.html

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Consumers should not expect slave labor, but they would happily consume it if regulation did not prevent it. Disclosure: I donate to progressive efforts in this space to drag the minimum wage up, which has not kept pace with inflation for many years.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Have you considered why there is inflation which always drives down real wages?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Monetary policy in an economy addicted to debt and the “need” for growth. Easier to steal value from the working class with inflation (ask your average citizen about the impact of expansionary monetary policy on their personal net worth, the result is likely deer in headlights) than appropriately tax the wealthiest and their wealth/assets. Thread topic for another day.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Monetary policy in an economy addicted to debt. Yes, agreed. > properly tax the wealthiest and their wealth/assets. Accounting gimmicks don't solve scarcity. You could expropriate all the wealth in the world, it wouldn't feed people for a year. You can't eat money. > Thread topic for another day. It is directly relevant to this discussion of the cost of labor and the standard of living that a laborer can expect.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Many developed countries have a reasonable minimum/living wage, you can’t wave scarcity as an excuse. Consumers can pay a bit more, and Jeff Bezos can be a bit less wealthy. World’s smallest violin. > You could expropriate all the wealth in the world, it wouldn't feed people for a year. You can't eat money. The wealth exists. Tax it. This isn’t about monetary inflation (as your quote attempts to conflate with wealth), it’s about redistributing existing and future wealth (not just income, wage and equity alike).
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Consumers can pay a bit more, and Jeff Bezos can be a bit less wealthy. Bezos' wealth is in amazon infrastructure/capital goods which delivers consumer goods to millions of people a day, and crucially, cannot be converted to food. How are you proposing to transform the market capitalization of amazon into a higher standard of living for the average person? > Many developed countries have a reasonable minimum/living wage, According to whom? I'm sure there are millions of wage laborers in those countries who would prefer to make more money and consider their preference to be entirely reasonable. Workers in the United States have a reasonable living wage, therefore nothing need change. > World’s smallest violin. Right, read an economics textbook please. People can't eat money. (responding to your edit) > The wealth exists. Tax it. So return on investment goes down, which lowers marginal profitability, meaning fewer firms are solvent. Then people have fewer places to work and fewer places to buy goods. People who worked at those businesses are now out of work so the few remaining businesses have more labor to choose from, justifying them paying even less. Everyone who doesn't get a job can just get public assistance, meaning they aren't contributing with their labor but they still bid for goods, causing the price of goods to go up. Thats a terrible idea. > This isn’t about monetary inflation (as your quote attempts to conflate with wealth), Per Krugman, monetary inflation is intended to drive down real wages. > it’s about redistributing existing and future wealth You can redistribute it so people can have a higher standard of living momentarily by purchasing consumption items. Thats exchanging capital for consumer goods, which results in a lower standard of living over time because there is less capital. Additionally the profits from those sales of consumer goods accrue to the people who still hold productive capital, i.e. the wealthy. You're describing a process that causes the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

LordDragonfang 6y ago

You know what else comes out of the pocket of the consumer? Paying for government assistance for people employed full time by a company. >more than 4,000 employees are on food stamps in nine states studied by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Only Walmart, McDonald’s and two dollar-store chains have more workers requiring such assistance, according to the report, which said 70% of recipients work full-time. In other words, Amazon is costing you, the taxpayer, money by not paying their workers a living wage.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> You know what else comes out of the pocket of the consumer? Paying for government assistance for people employed full time by a company. I think you mean "taxpayer" > In other words, Amazon is costing you, the taxpayer, money by not paying their workers a living wage. Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs. > living wage. what constitutes a "living wage" is dependent on the cost of consumer goods which is in turn dependent on the cost of labor. You're not going to escape the fact that some people's labor isn't worth enough to earn them the standard of living that you or they would prefer by wishful thinking or statutory fiat. You can, however, limit their options and distort the market in a vicious circle of economically ignorant mandates.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  "Imagine how much assistance they would need if they didn't have jobs." That would be better. I would MUCH rather pay for them to be in school instead of just paying part of Bezos' and other Amazon investors operating costs. Shit I wish I could have a buch of employees and get someone else to pay for them. What a great idea! Why doesn't everyone do that? I mean except for the employees of course. They can't have companies staffed by employees they don't pay for. Duh. Only Amazon and Walmart can have that, obvs. I mean who would be their employees? You? Not me. I guess we need something like a seperate class or group of people who have to be the underpaid employees so that the rest of us can enjoy being the employers without paying for it. We used to have that back in the good old days... It's almost like this is a stupid argument that there is no way to excuse, and no amount of indirect smoke & mirrors or denial gets around that, and anyone even trying deserves to be among the first people rounded up for the new press gangs they think are so fair a great.

ardy42 6y ago

> Sadly, the author doesn't seem to realize that those wages come out of the pocket of the consumer. Lower the cost of labor and you lower the cost of the good that is provided. Those pesky abolitionists apparently missed that too. Don't you think they'd have given up had they realized what emancipation would have done to the price of their clothing?

charlesu 6y ago
Same thing with child labor. Apparently it being outlawed was the end of American industry.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Actually industry is what made it possible to outlaw child labor by increasing the productivity of the individual worker so they could afford to live without putting their children to work. You can see this where non-industrialized countries still have subsistence level families that have as many children as possible in order that they may work to support the family. It's not because they are backwards, its because they have no other option because of the lack of capital.
  - charlesu 6y ago
    But the children I’m referring to were working in factories in a rapidly industrializing country.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Yes, eventually the country industrialized to the point that people could afford to live and raise a family without sending those children to work in a factory. They did have to wait for patents on the machines to expire so that more than a handful of wealthy individuals could own capital goods.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Thats a well-poisoning non sequitur.

charlesu 6y ago

More often than not shareholders and management can just pocket the difference not consumers. Levi jeans today are low quality compared to a few decades ago but they aren’t any cheaper. Same thing with colleges. Low wage adjuncts as far as the eye can see, but higher education has never been more expensive.

gruez 6y ago
>Levi jeans today are low quality compared to a few decades ago but they aren’t any cheaper. A simple search contradicts your claim: nytimes says: "A pair of Levi's 501 jeans cost $50 in 1998, and $46 in 2008"[1] >Same thing with colleges. Low wage adjuncts as far as the eye can see, but higher education has never been more expensive. The problem here are price insensitive consumers given tons of free money by the government (in the form of guaranteed student loans, regardless of ability to pay back). If you were given the gift of one free TV of your choice (valued up to $2000), your purchasing decision would be very different than if you were simply given $2000 in cash. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/fashion/29PRICE.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/fashion/29PRICE.html