4 ms·

Another angle still, is why does Amazon get to have the benefit of workers who eat and have homes when they do not pay enough to enable their workers to eat and

Another angle still, is why does Amazon get to have the benefit of workers who eat and have homes when they do not pay enough to enable their workers to eat and have homes? If we could set aside the suffering of the individual (which we cannot) one solution would be to let these companies devolve until they are entirely staffed by starving homeless people and see how that effects the productivity of their workforce.

krapp 6y ago
Don't give them ideas. If Amazon could staff their warehouses with homeless people, let them sleep on-site and only pay them in expired goods, they probably would.
- pinewurst 6y ago
  There's a very good (IMHO) recent novel called "The Warehouse" where an Amazon analog ("Cloud") actually has workers living at their logistics facility, eating at their cafeterias and being paid in company scrip. It feels way too close to a probable future for my tastes...
gruez 6y ago
> Another angle still, is why does Amazon get to have the benefit of workers who eat and have homes when they do not pay enough to enable their workers to eat and have homes? Because the workers do not have any better option, and working for amazon while making 80% of your required expenses, is better than making 0%. It's the same reason why workers in developing countries work in sweatshops. The working conditions might be terrible, but starving in your village is worse. >If we could set aside the suffering of the individual (which we cannot) one solution would be to let these companies devolve until they are entirely staffed by starving homeless people and see how that effects the productivity of their workforce. This doesn't make any sense. Just because someone's homeless doesn't mean they're unproductive workers. eg. if they were living paycheck to paycheck and they were laid off. Besides, if the applicant pool is big enough and there are more job seekers than positions available they can have their pick of workers. For your scenario to work you'd need need enough people willing to boycott amazon as an employer, and given the history of consumer boycotts I doubt it will work. I'm sure amazon raising their wages a few dollars will convince enough workers to break rank.
- brandonr49 6y ago
  If you think of the government as a union for the country's workers this explains why the minimum wage exists. It avoids prevents the wage race to the bottom that creates sweatshops. It also explains why some people see the minimum wage as the best method of "negotiating" with employers.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    That makes sense because unions are a way of exploiting companies so that the existing employees capture as much of the surplus as possible from the customers and owners and one of the ways they do this is by preventing competitors from entering the field and competing to offer services; and minimum wage ensures that if someone's labor is not marginally more valuable than the minimum wage, they won't be hired. This actually makes a lot of sense and is a new paradigm for analysis, thank you.

krapp 6y ago

Don't give them ideas. If Amazon could staff their warehouses with homeless people, let them sleep on-site and only pay them in expired goods, they probably would.

pinewurst 6y ago
There's a very good (IMHO) recent novel called "The Warehouse" where an Amazon analog ("Cloud") actually has workers living at their logistics facility, eating at their cafeterias and being paid in company scrip. It feels way too close to a probable future for my tastes...

gruez 6y ago

> Another angle still, is why does Amazon get to have the benefit of workers who eat and have homes when they do not pay enough to enable their workers to eat and have homes? Because the workers do not have any better option, and working for amazon while making 80% of your required expenses, is better than making 0%. It's the same reason why workers in developing countries work in sweatshops. The working conditions might be terrible, but starving in your village is worse. >If we could set aside the suffering of the individual (which we cannot) one solution would be to let these companies devolve until they are entirely staffed by starving homeless people and see how that effects the productivity of their workforce. This doesn't make any sense. Just because someone's homeless doesn't mean they're unproductive workers. eg. if they were living paycheck to paycheck and they were laid off. Besides, if the applicant pool is big enough and there are more job seekers than positions available they can have their pick of workers. For your scenario to work you'd need need enough people willing to boycott amazon as an employer, and given the history of consumer boycotts I doubt it will work. I'm sure amazon raising their wages a few dollars will convince enough workers to break rank.

brandonr49 6y ago
If you think of the government as a union for the country's workers this explains why the minimum wage exists. It avoids prevents the wage race to the bottom that creates sweatshops. It also explains why some people see the minimum wage as the best method of "negotiating" with employers.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  That makes sense because unions are a way of exploiting companies so that the existing employees capture as much of the surplus as possible from the customers and owners and one of the ways they do this is by preventing competitors from entering the field and competing to offer services; and minimum wage ensures that if someone's labor is not marginally more valuable than the minimum wage, they won't be hired. This actually makes a lot of sense and is a new paradigm for analysis, thank you.