5 ms·

And it’s a negative cycle. Those already budget stretched people are getting paid poorly by Amazon, so they too will shop at Amazon. We’re not there yet but the

by dstick 5y ago

And it’s a negative cycle. Those already budget stretched people are getting paid poorly by Amazon, so they too will shop at Amazon. We’re not there yet but the cycle is reminiscent of the factory owners with factory stores and pubs where the workers spend all their money during the industrial revolution. Unions and worker laws stem from that era. So who knows - maybe we’re on the cusp of another revolution that’s similar, but in our current digital revolution!

shakezula 5y ago
There was an article on the front page about how Amazon does this in some places already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
marcusverus 5y ago
> We’re not there yet but the cycle is reminiscent of the factory owners with factory stores and pubs where the workers spend all their money during the industrial revolution. Is it? Amazon employees (presumably) have the same options as everyone else. Many of those options are, generally speaking, cheaper than Amazon. Whatever your feelings about Amazon in general, fact that Amazon’s supposedly cash-strapped employees choose to pay a premium for convenience is not evidence of Amazon’s malevolence.
XorNot 5y ago
See also: Walmart and its standard practice onboarding employees by signing them up to food stamps.
- gruez 5y ago
  Why is helping employees get government aid bad? Isn't that what government aid is supposed to be for?
  - snypher 5y ago
    It is to stop the employees from wondering why their wage does not cover their living expenses.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Because if you tax Bob who makes 24 bucks an hour to feed Sam who is making 12 then Sam is in effect working for below market wages because in a functional market Sam would never work for less money than he required to eat. This arrangement is a transfer of wealth between the middle class and Walmart regardless of whether they opt to shop at Walmart.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      In a world where Bob makes $24/hr and Sam doesn’t work (because he won’t take the $12/hr job), Bob’s probably not going to pay less taxes or be better off.
      - XorNot 5y ago
        In a world where Walmart didn't post a gross profit of 24.3% for 2020[1], you might have a point. But in a world where Walmart posted that much profit on it's $559 billion 2020 revenues[2], somehow Walmart is being allowed to tax me, not a Walmart shopper, via my taxes, and transfer it to Walmart's owners and shareholders, by forcing me to pay for part of their employees wages. Which they clearly have the money to actually pay for. Unless Walmart is a break-even business, there is no excuse, period, for them to not be paying a living wage and getting sponsored by the government for it. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269414/gross-profit-margin-of-walmart-worldwide-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/269414/gross-profit-marg... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2021/02/18/walmart-revenue-hits-559-billion-for-fiscal-year-2020/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2021/02/18/walmart...
        sokoloff 5y ago
        Gross profit is profit before paying their employees, so saying they have a gross profit percentage of X is certainly not dispositive (and is close to meaningless) in terms of supporting whether they could pay their employees more than currently. You need to look at an operating income figure to make such a conclusion. (Or another financial measure that’s “after” labor, but OI is probably the standard one.)
kortilla 5y ago
It’s not reminiscent of it at all. The factory stores had shitty prices and were the only option. Amazon employees can choose to spend their money anywhere. The company towns are gone.
- dstick 5y ago
  Which is precisely my point. Amazon is forcing competitors out of business. And once they have a monopoly, history teaches us they will have no incentives left to keep their prices down, and introduce the very shitty prices you speak off. Hence: we’re not there _yet_
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > Which is precisely my point. No it’s not. Your point was completely the opposite (factory towns had shitty prices due to exclusivity). > Amazon is forcing competitors out of business. And once they have a monopoly They are forcing little shitty stores that have nothing to add over ordering online out of business. They aren’t anywhere near a monopoly in any segment of the world. They aren’t even on a path to it. It’s so trivial for people to sell things online that they will never be anything close to one unless they get online sales banned for the rest of the Internet.
hinkley 5y ago
My relatives come from a town of <10k people who got a Walmart around the time everyone was figuring out Walmart's tactics. They tore up the side of the road from the highway to grandma's house to install bigger storm drains, and as we know now the town usually never recoups those costs. My aunt went to be a manager at the Walmart while everything else in town slowly went out of business. They carried sewing supplies until Franklin's went under and then they got rid of that section. It's the same story with louder music.

by dstick 5y ago

shakezula 5y ago

There was an article on the front page about how Amazon does this in some places already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

marcusverus 5y ago

> We’re not there yet but the cycle is reminiscent of the factory owners with factory stores and pubs where the workers spend all their money during the industrial revolution. Is it? Amazon employees (presumably) have the same options as everyone else. Many of those options are, generally speaking, cheaper than Amazon. Whatever your feelings about Amazon in general, fact that Amazon’s supposedly cash-strapped employees choose to pay a premium for convenience is not evidence of Amazon’s malevolence.

XorNot 5y ago

See also: Walmart and its standard practice onboarding employees by signing them up to food stamps.

gruez 5y ago
Why is helping employees get government aid bad? Isn't that what government aid is supposed to be for?
- snypher 5y ago
  It is to stop the employees from wondering why their wage does not cover their living expenses.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Because if you tax Bob who makes 24 bucks an hour to feed Sam who is making 12 then Sam is in effect working for below market wages because in a functional market Sam would never work for less money than he required to eat. This arrangement is a transfer of wealth between the middle class and Walmart regardless of whether they opt to shop at Walmart.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    In a world where Bob makes $24/hr and Sam doesn’t work (because he won’t take the $12/hr job), Bob’s probably not going to pay less taxes or be better off.
    - XorNot 5y ago
      In a world where Walmart didn't post a gross profit of 24.3% for 2020[1], you might have a point. But in a world where Walmart posted that much profit on it's $559 billion 2020 revenues[2], somehow Walmart is being allowed to tax me, not a Walmart shopper, via my taxes, and transfer it to Walmart's owners and shareholders, by forcing me to pay for part of their employees wages. Which they clearly have the money to actually pay for. Unless Walmart is a break-even business, there is no excuse, period, for them to not be paying a living wage and getting sponsored by the government for it. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269414/gross-profit-margin-of-walmart-worldwide-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/269414/gross-profit-marg... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2021/02/18/walmart-revenue-hits-559-billion-for-fiscal-year-2020/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2021/02/18/walmart...
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Gross profit is profit before paying their employees, so saying they have a gross profit percentage of X is certainly not dispositive (and is close to meaningless) in terms of supporting whether they could pay their employees more than currently. You need to look at an operating income figure to make such a conclusion. (Or another financial measure that’s “after” labor, but OI is probably the standard one.)

kortilla 5y ago

It’s not reminiscent of it at all. The factory stores had shitty prices and were the only option. Amazon employees can choose to spend their money anywhere. The company towns are gone.

dstick 5y ago
Which is precisely my point. Amazon is forcing competitors out of business. And once they have a monopoly, history teaches us they will have no incentives left to keep their prices down, and introduce the very shitty prices you speak off. Hence: we’re not there _yet_
- kortilla 5y ago
  > Which is precisely my point. No it’s not. Your point was completely the opposite (factory towns had shitty prices due to exclusivity). > Amazon is forcing competitors out of business. And once they have a monopoly They are forcing little shitty stores that have nothing to add over ordering online out of business. They aren’t anywhere near a monopoly in any segment of the world. They aren’t even on a path to it. It’s so trivial for people to sell things online that they will never be anything close to one unless they get online sales banned for the rest of the Internet.

hinkley 5y ago

My relatives come from a town of <10k people who got a Walmart around the time everyone was figuring out Walmart's tactics. They tore up the side of the road from the highway to grandma's house to install bigger storm drains, and as we know now the town usually never recoups those costs. My aunt went to be a manager at the Walmart while everything else in town slowly went out of business. They carried sewing supplies until Franklin's went under and then they got rid of that section. It's the same story with louder music.