8 ms·

> They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators That makes no sense.

> They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators That makes no sense. Deeply/continually unhappy workers are less productive, especially if they leave. And action from regulators is bad for productivity, especially when laws are enforced via court action/penalties or when new laws imposed. This line of commentary is just-so narrative to uphold the position that everything Amazon does is evil. But it doesn't demonstrate that Amazon actually has the incentive to do said evil things.

Arainach 6y ago
Amazon measures all of the numbers and fires its "less productive" workers. There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people, so they have a constant stream of people to work as fast as physically possible until they burn out. This is baked into their entire philosophy - it applies to warehouse workers, drivers, and software engineers.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  "There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people" There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US (I'm not from the US but I'm not that stupid), and even if not, at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion. I'm bouncing out for some sleep, thanks.
  - imagica 6y ago
    > There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US ( Government-mandated conditions are on paper only, are often abused and the boundaries are always stretched out to the breaking point. > at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. You're underestimating the amount of rampant poverty and unemployment without benefits in the US. You're un
  - bostonsre 6y ago
    What options does a warehouse worker or a package delivery guy have if they want to care for a family to the best of their ability. These jobs are tough but they pay slightly not than most. Going to work for McDonald's and earning 25k a year does not put enough food on the table. People grit their teeth and bare it because they have no other recourse or options. > This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion. Why don't you engage in a discussion to try to see the other side's opinion. Shouting "It's a narrative" and plugging your ears is not some trump card that automatically wins an argument. Others and myself are not some socialist cabal secretly trying to take down capitalism. I get paid way too much for stuff that doesn't feel like a real job. I love capitalism but don't see why we can't have a softer flavor of it. It is tough on the bottom rung of society and companies like Amazon have the resources to make lots of people happy and content with their jobs.
    - tomhoward 6y ago
      > Why don't you engage in a discussion to try to see the other side's opinion I've been engaging in discussion with the other side for over 20 hours and have written over a dozen comments, in a good faith effort to fully understand every other commenter's position. Hardly plugging my ears. > I get paid way too much for stuff that doesn't feel like a real job. I love capitalism For what it's worth, neither of those statements apply to me. I've never earned huge amounts of money, I work long and stressful hours for the income I make, and I'm deeply curious about different economic and social systems that can make life better for people, particularly those at the very bottom. The reason I engage in a discussion like this is to better understand what the real underlying issues are and what solutions are available. I get dispirited when the arguments come down to simplistic takes to the effect that it's all simply a matter of evil giant corporations paying too little and treating workers badly, and if they just paid people more and treated people more nicely everything would be better. That's what I mean by "narrative". It's a nice-sounding just-so story, but overlooks a whole lot of really important detail. After a 25+ year period in which I've studied business/economics at tertiary level, read/examined/contemplated economic and social issues very deeply for that entire time, been a business operator, an employee, a contractor and a volunteer in all kinds of different organisations at all levels and taken a deep interest in the issues for the most needy in society, I've come to understand there's a bit more to it than that. Please don't assume that if someone is asking questions and making points that challenge the explanation you've settled on, it has to be because they care less than you do about those who are not well off.
- kodah 6y ago
  Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y. You started the argument with the inclination that it's targeting "poor people" but then wrapped it up with the fact that it happens to software engineers too. It makes the line about poor people look like concern trolling. It sounds like what you don't like is technocracy, which I can agree is harmful at times.
  - bostonsre 6y ago
    You think people are perpetuating a "narrative" about how it sucks to be a cog why exactly? You honestly think we are secret socialists arguing against Amazon? I love my cushy tech job where I get paid ridiculously for what doesn't feel like an actual job. I just happen to know people on those bottom rungs and how much it sucks. Put yourself in the shoes of each layer of a bureaucratic organization like Amazon. Most will be normal rational actors that are self interested. Most will want to make more money and advance their career. For those on the very bottom of society, working a warehouse job will mean a few more dollars more than minimum wage and it will be one of the best opportunities available to them. They will not enjoy it and it will be hard work but they will do it because making 25k a year at McDonald's will not put enough food on their families tables. Then you have those slightly better off that are lucky enough to get a chance at an amazing ~20-25 dollars an hour as a driver. It will be hard work but again, they will grit their teeth and bare it because there is the height of what they can attain in life and it will put food on the table and a few gifts under the tree at Christmas. Then you have the managers just above that first layer. They themselves are micromanaged and are glorified baby sitters whose job it is to get a whole bunch of unhappy people to be productive. They themselves want to provide better for their families and they will seek to improve their career. They are NOT solely evaluated on how quickly they can shuffle boxes around, else they would give raises to motivate their employees. They instead have to bend over backwards to produce results while keeping costs low. They have very few options to do well and are forced to do things that will make those on the bottom unhappy. They will do things like cut hours off employees so that they are no longer full time so that they don't have to pay health insurance. They will be lax on safety because it's worth the risk to them. The ones good at squeezing the bottom rung will get promoted and so on. It is a darwinian survival of the fittest with rational actors on every rung. Should we tell those on the bottom tough shit, you should be thankful you're not working at McDonald's? Or do we all say you know what that incentive structure seems bad, that Amazon company has billions of dollars of cash laying around, it doesn't seem fair that our fellow citizens have to trudge through life miserably and that we should enact some laws to make their lives less bad? Why is a little bit softer version of capitalism so bad? We live in a shared society where those on the lower rung have it hard. We are all on the same team here and there is plenty of prosperity to share around. Meet and talk to people who are on that lower rung. Try to get to know them and understand their viewpoint, the struggles that they go through and what their lives look like.
navbaker 6y ago
I would guess, admittedly with no evidence, that for this particular job, Amazon does not have to worry about posting high numbers for retention. It’s a job without a ton of skill barriers to entry, so they don’t have to be deeply concerned about worker happiness.
- developer92 6y ago
  I would second this: look at how they treat their engineers Vs their warehouse staff
bostonsre 6y ago
Amazon is just the new kid on the block, companies have been doing this for a long time now. I have friends that are or have been the lowest cogs in these massive shipping and delivery machines. The top rung of Amazon doesn't dictate policy down to those lowest cogs. There are layers and layers of middle management who have very few dials to tweak. If those managers want to advance their careers they don't have many options except to squeeze those gains out of the lower rungs. The nice managers sink while the ones that exploit are promoted. It absolutely sucks on the bottom rung, yet those on the bottom know that they have very few if any better options to provide for their families. They are almost all deeply unhappy and there is a sense of despair and hopelessness down there. Everyone better off assumes it's not that bad, but really, they are miserable. Lots of people were wondering how Trump possibly could have gotten elected, but there is a massive amount of unhappy people that are tired of getting squeezed by anyone with authority and were grasping at anything that was remotely promising any change at all. It is bad down there and the hilarious thing is that so much human despair can be alleviated by just acknowledging how hard it is down there and giving the bottom rung an extra quarter or two an hour every few months. The companies would barely notice.
- pedrosorio 6y ago
  “ It absolutely sucks on the bottom rung, yet those on the bottom know that they have very few if any better options to provide for their families. (...) there is a massive amount of unhappy people that are tired of getting squeezed by anyone with authority (...) the hilarious thing is that so much human despair can be alleviated by just acknowledging how hard it is down there and giving the bottom rung an extra quarter or two an hour every few months“ How do small increases in compensation at the soul-crushing job help solve these people’s problems? If anything it sounds like it makes it even less economically viable to leave the dystopian environment they are in.
  - bostonsre 6y ago
    They are going through that suffering for money. Giving raises that aren't too insultingly low gives them slightly more for that suffering and provides some additional well being by giving people hope that their lives will get better and that maybe it won't be so bad later. > If anything it sounds like it makes it even less economically viable to leave the dystopian environment they are in. Economically viable for the large corporation but not for those on the bottom. Why does the maximization of shareholder value deserve to be the only consideration? Amazon skirts tax laws to save billions while taking advantage of selling within the United States. Why shouldn't we as a society say that those on the bottom deserve a slightly less bad life?

Arainach 6y ago

Amazon measures all of the numbers and fires its "less productive" workers. There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people, so they have a constant stream of people to work as fast as physically possible until they burn out. This is baked into their entire philosophy - it applies to warehouse workers, drivers, and software engineers.

tomhoward 6y ago
"There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people" There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US (I'm not from the US but I'm not that stupid), and even if not, at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion. I'm bouncing out for some sleep, thanks.
- imagica 6y ago
  > There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US ( Government-mandated conditions are on paper only, are often abused and the boundaries are always stretched out to the breaking point. > at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. You're underestimating the amount of rampant poverty and unemployment without benefits in the US. You're un
- bostonsre 6y ago
  What options does a warehouse worker or a package delivery guy have if they want to care for a family to the best of their ability. These jobs are tough but they pay slightly not than most. Going to work for McDonald's and earning 25k a year does not put enough food on the table. People grit their teeth and bare it because they have no other recourse or options. > This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion. Why don't you engage in a discussion to try to see the other side's opinion. Shouting "It's a narrative" and plugging your ears is not some trump card that automatically wins an argument. Others and myself are not some socialist cabal secretly trying to take down capitalism. I get paid way too much for stuff that doesn't feel like a real job. I love capitalism but don't see why we can't have a softer flavor of it. It is tough on the bottom rung of society and companies like Amazon have the resources to make lots of people happy and content with their jobs.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    > Why don't you engage in a discussion to try to see the other side's opinion I've been engaging in discussion with the other side for over 20 hours and have written over a dozen comments, in a good faith effort to fully understand every other commenter's position. Hardly plugging my ears. > I get paid way too much for stuff that doesn't feel like a real job. I love capitalism For what it's worth, neither of those statements apply to me. I've never earned huge amounts of money, I work long and stressful hours for the income I make, and I'm deeply curious about different economic and social systems that can make life better for people, particularly those at the very bottom. The reason I engage in a discussion like this is to better understand what the real underlying issues are and what solutions are available. I get dispirited when the arguments come down to simplistic takes to the effect that it's all simply a matter of evil giant corporations paying too little and treating workers badly, and if they just paid people more and treated people more nicely everything would be better. That's what I mean by "narrative". It's a nice-sounding just-so story, but overlooks a whole lot of really important detail. After a 25+ year period in which I've studied business/economics at tertiary level, read/examined/contemplated economic and social issues very deeply for that entire time, been a business operator, an employee, a contractor and a volunteer in all kinds of different organisations at all levels and taken a deep interest in the issues for the most needy in society, I've come to understand there's a bit more to it than that. Please don't assume that if someone is asking questions and making points that challenge the explanation you've settled on, it has to be because they care less than you do about those who are not well off.
kodah 6y ago
Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y. You started the argument with the inclination that it's targeting "poor people" but then wrapped it up with the fact that it happens to software engineers too. It makes the line about poor people look like concern trolling. It sounds like what you don't like is technocracy, which I can agree is harmful at times.
- bostonsre 6y ago
  You think people are perpetuating a "narrative" about how it sucks to be a cog why exactly? You honestly think we are secret socialists arguing against Amazon? I love my cushy tech job where I get paid ridiculously for what doesn't feel like an actual job. I just happen to know people on those bottom rungs and how much it sucks. Put yourself in the shoes of each layer of a bureaucratic organization like Amazon. Most will be normal rational actors that are self interested. Most will want to make more money and advance their career. For those on the very bottom of society, working a warehouse job will mean a few more dollars more than minimum wage and it will be one of the best opportunities available to them. They will not enjoy it and it will be hard work but they will do it because making 25k a year at McDonald's will not put enough food on their families tables. Then you have those slightly better off that are lucky enough to get a chance at an amazing ~20-25 dollars an hour as a driver. It will be hard work but again, they will grit their teeth and bare it because there is the height of what they can attain in life and it will put food on the table and a few gifts under the tree at Christmas. Then you have the managers just above that first layer. They themselves are micromanaged and are glorified baby sitters whose job it is to get a whole bunch of unhappy people to be productive. They themselves want to provide better for their families and they will seek to improve their career. They are NOT solely evaluated on how quickly they can shuffle boxes around, else they would give raises to motivate their employees. They instead have to bend over backwards to produce results while keeping costs low. They have very few options to do well and are forced to do things that will make those on the bottom unhappy. They will do things like cut hours off employees so that they are no longer full time so that they don't have to pay health insurance. They will be lax on safety because it's worth the risk to them. The ones good at squeezing the bottom rung will get promoted and so on. It is a darwinian survival of the fittest with rational actors on every rung. Should we tell those on the bottom tough shit, you should be thankful you're not working at McDonald's? Or do we all say you know what that incentive structure seems bad, that Amazon company has billions of dollars of cash laying around, it doesn't seem fair that our fellow citizens have to trudge through life miserably and that we should enact some laws to make their lives less bad? Why is a little bit softer version of capitalism so bad? We live in a shared society where those on the lower rung have it hard. We are all on the same team here and there is plenty of prosperity to share around. Meet and talk to people who are on that lower rung. Try to get to know them and understand their viewpoint, the struggles that they go through and what their lives look like.

navbaker 6y ago

I would guess, admittedly with no evidence, that for this particular job, Amazon does not have to worry about posting high numbers for retention. It’s a job without a ton of skill barriers to entry, so they don’t have to be deeply concerned about worker happiness.

developer92 6y ago
I would second this: look at how they treat their engineers Vs their warehouse staff

bostonsre 6y ago

Amazon is just the new kid on the block, companies have been doing this for a long time now. I have friends that are or have been the lowest cogs in these massive shipping and delivery machines. The top rung of Amazon doesn't dictate policy down to those lowest cogs. There are layers and layers of middle management who have very few dials to tweak. If those managers want to advance their careers they don't have many options except to squeeze those gains out of the lower rungs. The nice managers sink while the ones that exploit are promoted. It absolutely sucks on the bottom rung, yet those on the bottom know that they have very few if any better options to provide for their families. They are almost all deeply unhappy and there is a sense of despair and hopelessness down there. Everyone better off assumes it's not that bad, but really, they are miserable. Lots of people were wondering how Trump possibly could have gotten elected, but there is a massive amount of unhappy people that are tired of getting squeezed by anyone with authority and were grasping at anything that was remotely promising any change at all. It is bad down there and the hilarious thing is that so much human despair can be alleviated by just acknowledging how hard it is down there and giving the bottom rung an extra quarter or two an hour every few months. The companies would barely notice.

pedrosorio 6y ago
“ It absolutely sucks on the bottom rung, yet those on the bottom know that they have very few if any better options to provide for their families. (...) there is a massive amount of unhappy people that are tired of getting squeezed by anyone with authority (...) the hilarious thing is that so much human despair can be alleviated by just acknowledging how hard it is down there and giving the bottom rung an extra quarter or two an hour every few months“ How do small increases in compensation at the soul-crushing job help solve these people’s problems? If anything it sounds like it makes it even less economically viable to leave the dystopian environment they are in.
- bostonsre 6y ago
  They are going through that suffering for money. Giving raises that aren't too insultingly low gives them slightly more for that suffering and provides some additional well being by giving people hope that their lives will get better and that maybe it won't be so bad later. > If anything it sounds like it makes it even less economically viable to leave the dystopian environment they are in. Economically viable for the large corporation but not for those on the bottom. Why does the maximization of shareholder value deserve to be the only consideration? Amazon skirts tax laws to save billions while taking advantage of selling within the United States. Why shouldn't we as a society say that those on the bottom deserve a slightly less bad life?