5 ms·

I'd err on the side of Amazon because the free market is more likely to address their practices. My hunch is that corruption, bullying, etc don't go away. Orga

I'd err on the side of Amazon because the free market is more likely to address their practices. My hunch is that corruption, bullying, etc don't go away. Organizations don't stop doing those things unless they lose their power. On the other hand, if a company like Amazon is treating workers poorly, then a competitive environment should fix that in the long run. E.g. if Amazon overworks its people while other companies don't, either Amazon has to pay more and more if its working conditions are worse and worse (relative to peers), or it'll have to improve working conditions to keep its workers.

orthecreedence 5y ago
Unions are the product of free markets.
- mc32 5y ago
  So there were no unions in the Soviet Union and no unions in North Korea? That’s good to know.
  - orthecreedence 5y ago
    You're being obtuse. Unions in the USSR and unions in a free market capitalist system serve different purposes. There is some truth to what you're saying though: unions exist where there is a struggle between labor and private ownership. The existence of them in a "socialist" mode of production (barring some kind of syndicalist setup in which economic governance happens specifically through unions) seems superfluous and suggests that private ownership had not been abolished but was relegated to the state/bureaucracy instead of wealthy holders of capital.
cmckn 5y ago
Except the harm is not theoretical, and such a market correction doesn’t happen overnight. People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out.
- lpolovets 5y ago
  > People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out. IMHO you're making a judgment about what other people want, but those people's actions suggest otherwise. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on its workers, and those workers are free to work at other places: a different company's warehouse, a non-warehouse job, etc. They are choosing to stay at Amazon for some reason, so it seems like the bundle of Amazon's work intensity and its wages & benefits is worth it to a lot of people. As an analogy, if Google hypothetically paid $200k to engineers for 40-hour weeks while Amazon paid $400k to engineers for 70-hour weeks, then there would be engineers that prefer one and engineers that prefer the other. But these engineers are not forced to work at either of those companies. In this scenario, an engineer at Amazon might complain about 70-hour weeks and poor work-life balance, but if they're working there then they find those negative conditions worth the compensation.
  - cmckn 5y ago
    Your analogy is useful, but the numbers have a lot to do with the conclusion. We're not talking about people choosing a Tesla or a beach house, we're talking about people choosing between living in section 8 + riding the bus, or living in a one bedroom + owning a vehicle. I grew up (middle-class) in Alabama, in a smaller town than Bessemer; I have known people in these situations. Warehouse workers there are paid $15/hr, double the minimum wage. That warehouse employs thousands of people. Folks stay in these jobs because, if they left, they would drop (far) below the Federal poverty line. There aren't enough $15/hr jobs elsewhere to go around. So, enduring the hard working conditions is a very different choice for these workers vs. someone making $400,000/year in an engineering role. Everyone has a right to make this call for themselves, but there are limits.
poisonborz 5y ago
Except Amazon is a monopoly, that all but obliterated all major competitors. They need a much bigger workforce, can afford to keep their wages comfortably higher, while extorting whatever conditions for it.
- incrudible 5y ago
  If Amazon has a monopoly on something, then what is it? I can not think of anything. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Amazon has a monopoly on online retail: If prices are low and wages are high, what is the problem?

orthecreedence 5y ago

Unions are the product of free markets.

mc32 5y ago
So there were no unions in the Soviet Union and no unions in North Korea? That’s good to know.
- orthecreedence 5y ago
  You're being obtuse. Unions in the USSR and unions in a free market capitalist system serve different purposes. There is some truth to what you're saying though: unions exist where there is a struggle between labor and private ownership. The existence of them in a "socialist" mode of production (barring some kind of syndicalist setup in which economic governance happens specifically through unions) seems superfluous and suggests that private ownership had not been abolished but was relegated to the state/bureaucracy instead of wealthy holders of capital.

cmckn 5y ago

Except the harm is not theoretical, and such a market correction doesn’t happen overnight. People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out.

lpolovets 5y ago
> People don’t deserve to be ground to a pulp while your simulation plays out. IMHO you're making a judgment about what other people want, but those people's actions suggest otherwise. Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on its workers, and those workers are free to work at other places: a different company's warehouse, a non-warehouse job, etc. They are choosing to stay at Amazon for some reason, so it seems like the bundle of Amazon's work intensity and its wages & benefits is worth it to a lot of people. As an analogy, if Google hypothetically paid $200k to engineers for 40-hour weeks while Amazon paid $400k to engineers for 70-hour weeks, then there would be engineers that prefer one and engineers that prefer the other. But these engineers are not forced to work at either of those companies. In this scenario, an engineer at Amazon might complain about 70-hour weeks and poor work-life balance, but if they're working there then they find those negative conditions worth the compensation.
- cmckn 5y ago
  Your analogy is useful, but the numbers have a lot to do with the conclusion. We're not talking about people choosing a Tesla or a beach house, we're talking about people choosing between living in section 8 + riding the bus, or living in a one bedroom + owning a vehicle. I grew up (middle-class) in Alabama, in a smaller town than Bessemer; I have known people in these situations. Warehouse workers there are paid $15/hr, double the minimum wage. That warehouse employs thousands of people. Folks stay in these jobs because, if they left, they would drop (far) below the Federal poverty line. There aren't enough $15/hr jobs elsewhere to go around. So, enduring the hard working conditions is a very different choice for these workers vs. someone making $400,000/year in an engineering role. Everyone has a right to make this call for themselves, but there are limits.

poisonborz 5y ago

Except Amazon is a monopoly, that all but obliterated all major competitors. They need a much bigger workforce, can afford to keep their wages comfortably higher, while extorting whatever conditions for it.

incrudible 5y ago
If Amazon has a monopoly on something, then what is it? I can not think of anything. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Amazon has a monopoly on online retail: If prices are low and wages are high, what is the problem?