5 ms·

>"So aside from just stop buying from Amazon, what can we do?" Lower the barriers to entry for business. It is not easy to comply with regulations and reportin

by fridif 5y ago

>"So aside from just stop buying from Amazon, what can we do?" Lower the barriers to entry for business. It is not easy to comply with regulations and reporting. A scrappy startup can replace Amazon if they can focus on things that are not burdensome and arbitrary, like rent + insurance + tax reporting + legal.

shakezula 5y ago
Lol, no a startup can't replace Amazon without themselves having all of those rents, and insurances, and reporting accountants and lawyers. Amazon has a logistics network that rivals the U.S. military's right now. You can't just "displace & disrupt" that with a trendy San Francisco office.
- jefftk 5y ago
  Why wouldn't you have said the same about Amazon and B&N in 1994?
  - fridif 5y ago
    I second this comment 1000x. Amazon beat Barnes, and then Walmart, and then Jet tried to beat Amazon. If the average Joe was able to give it a shot instead of just the Harvard elite, then we'd have many more chances
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Amazon wasn't competing with B&N in 1994. B&N however (and Borders, and so many others) were. Amazon in the 90s wasn't about "getting a book" but "getting a book via a computer, from a place with "all the books" and I don't have to drive". B&N could have competed with that if they had understand what was happening, but I don't think they did. bookshop.org appears to do so, but may be 20 years too late.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    I don’t think the previous commenter was saying that no startup could disrupt Amazon, but that no startup could disrupt Amazon simply by spending less time on tax paperwork. Amazon didn’t disrupt B&N by spending less time on tax paperwork. They disrupted them by changing essentially every fundamental piece of how they conducted their business.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Amazon's original pitch was not selling you the latest Stephen King novel. B&N was going to beat them there. But they were going to own the long tail of books you cannot stock a cache of every few miles in suburbia.
robocat 5y ago
> burdensome and arbitrary, like rent + insurance + tax reporting + legal. If "rent + insurance" are unnecessary overheads, you might as well say employee protections are completely useless regulations too.
krapp 5y ago
You expect a scrappy startup which has few or no regulations to comply with to treat their employees better than Amazon, which only treats their employees as well as they do because regulations force them to?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > which only treats their employees as well as they do because regulations force them to? In fairness, the do pay more than the legal minimum wage in many places.
mcguire 5y ago
In other words, if the scrappy startup is worse than Amazon?

by fridif 5y ago

shakezula 5y ago

Lol, no a startup can't replace Amazon without themselves having all of those rents, and insurances, and reporting accountants and lawyers. Amazon has a logistics network that rivals the U.S. military's right now. You can't just "displace & disrupt" that with a trendy San Francisco office.

jefftk 5y ago
Why wouldn't you have said the same about Amazon and B&N in 1994?
- fridif 5y ago
  I second this comment 1000x. Amazon beat Barnes, and then Walmart, and then Jet tried to beat Amazon. If the average Joe was able to give it a shot instead of just the Harvard elite, then we'd have many more chances
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Amazon wasn't competing with B&N in 1994. B&N however (and Borders, and so many others) were. Amazon in the 90s wasn't about "getting a book" but "getting a book via a computer, from a place with "all the books" and I don't have to drive". B&N could have competed with that if they had understand what was happening, but I don't think they did. bookshop.org appears to do so, but may be 20 years too late.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I don’t think the previous commenter was saying that no startup could disrupt Amazon, but that no startup could disrupt Amazon simply by spending less time on tax paperwork. Amazon didn’t disrupt B&N by spending less time on tax paperwork. They disrupted them by changing essentially every fundamental piece of how they conducted their business.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Amazon's original pitch was not selling you the latest Stephen King novel. B&N was going to beat them there. But they were going to own the long tail of books you cannot stock a cache of every few miles in suburbia.

robocat 5y ago

> burdensome and arbitrary, like rent + insurance + tax reporting + legal. If "rent + insurance" are unnecessary overheads, you might as well say employee protections are completely useless regulations too.

krapp 5y ago

You expect a scrappy startup which has few or no regulations to comply with to treat their employees better than Amazon, which only treats their employees as well as they do because regulations force them to?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
HWR_14 5y ago
> which only treats their employees as well as they do because regulations force them to? In fairness, the do pay more than the legal minimum wage in many places.

mcguire 5y ago

In other words, if the scrappy startup is worse than Amazon?