7 ms·

I wonder if amazon will spin out AWS so that warehouse workers wont have access to its profits.

by ryan93 5y ago

simulate-me 5y ago
Then Amazon the retail company also won’t have access to the profits. Growing a retail business can be capital intensive. I’m not sure it makes sense to load up the retail portion of the business with debt just to avoid paying the workers.
- ProAm 5y ago
  They can become a wholly owned subsidiary and still have access to profits.
  - simulate-me 5y ago
    AWS is already a wholly-owned subsidiary.
    - ProAm 4y ago
      I didnt realize they split it out from the umbrella.
tick_tock_tick 5y ago
I really hope they do I'd much rather be invested in just AWS vs AWS and a logistics network.
paxys 5y ago
Would Amazon even be able to afford its AWS bills then?
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  I've seen the numbers while I worked at Amazon. Its interestingly AWS that can't lose Retail as a customer. Retail can very easily afford the AWS bill and is actually currently still getting ripped off by AWS. Retail really should build its own infra again (or at least use it as a negotiations tactic with AWS). It could easily save 90% of its infra spend if not stuck on AWS (including the internal rates it gets) right now.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Why build their own, I bet GCP or Azure would give them a crazy good rate :P
  - paxys 4y ago
    Could get a better rate – maybe. Could save 90%? I don't believe that.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    That sounds like they are manipulating the numbers to make retail seem less successful, and AWS more successful.
satsuma 5y ago
probably not unless they're forced to. retail lost money for amazon until very recently -- aws was the only thing keeping amazon afloat for years and years
- ejb999 5y ago
  which, I think, is the OP's point - if they spin off AWS, when they need to negotiate with the union then amazon won't look nearly as profitable as Amazon plus AWS: "hey we lost a billion dollars last year, we can't afford this contract". Wouldn't put it past them.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    "put it past them"? Why wouldn't the right reference be "what portion of the company operations would be disrupted if the unionized labor went on strike?" If the warehouse workers go on strike and the profitable part of the business continues unimpeded, it seems like the retail/FC part of the business is the one that's at risk.
- mter 4y ago
  Retail reinvests money into fcs so that the amazon moat grows bigger. Anyone wanting to challenge amazon for delivery has to spend tens/hundreds of billions and years to replicate the fc/delivery systems. AWS doesn't grow fast enough so they have revenue Turning a profit is a failure. The market loves the forever growth strategy.
charcircuit 4y ago
It would be good for AWS employees because you don't have factory workers ruining your benefits due to nondiscrimination rules. Factory workers not paying into a 401k screws up everyone else in the company.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  This is an expression of some terrible worker solidarity. Factory workers are not paying into the 401k because they're underpaid and living paycheck to paycheck. As a non-warehouse worker, you could be advocating for them to be lifted out of poverty so they can also participate in retirement savings like you, instead of advocating for severing the company into two classes of workers. You have more in common with a warehouse worker than with a major shareholder.

I wonder if amazon will spin out AWS so that warehouse workers wont have access to its profits.

by ryan93 5y ago

I wonder if amazon will spin out AWS so that warehouse workers wont have access to its profits.

Then Amazon the retail company also won’t have access to the profits. Growing a retail business can be capital intensive. I’m not sure it makes sense to load up the retail portion of the business with debt just to avoid paying the workers.

ProAm 5y ago
They can become a wholly owned subsidiary and still have access to profits.
- simulate-me 5y ago
  AWS is already a wholly-owned subsidiary.
  - ProAm 4y ago
    I didnt realize they split it out from the umbrella.

tick_tock_tick 5y ago

I really hope they do I'd much rather be invested in just AWS vs AWS and a logistics network.

paxys 5y ago

Would Amazon even be able to afford its AWS bills then?

yazaddaruvala 4y ago
I've seen the numbers while I worked at Amazon. Its interestingly AWS that can't lose Retail as a customer. Retail can very easily afford the AWS bill and is actually currently still getting ripped off by AWS. Retail really should build its own infra again (or at least use it as a negotiations tactic with AWS). It could easily save 90% of its infra spend if not stuck on AWS (including the internal rates it gets) right now.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Why build their own, I bet GCP or Azure would give them a crazy good rate :P
- paxys 4y ago
  Could get a better rate – maybe. Could save 90%? I don't believe that.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  That sounds like they are manipulating the numbers to make retail seem less successful, and AWS more successful.

satsuma 5y ago

probably not unless they're forced to. retail lost money for amazon until very recently -- aws was the only thing keeping amazon afloat for years and years

ejb999 5y ago
which, I think, is the OP's point - if they spin off AWS, when they need to negotiate with the union then amazon won't look nearly as profitable as Amazon plus AWS: "hey we lost a billion dollars last year, we can't afford this contract". Wouldn't put it past them.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  "put it past them"? Why wouldn't the right reference be "what portion of the company operations would be disrupted if the unionized labor went on strike?" If the warehouse workers go on strike and the profitable part of the business continues unimpeded, it seems like the retail/FC part of the business is the one that's at risk.
mter 4y ago
Retail reinvests money into fcs so that the amazon moat grows bigger. Anyone wanting to challenge amazon for delivery has to spend tens/hundreds of billions and years to replicate the fc/delivery systems. AWS doesn't grow fast enough so they have revenue Turning a profit is a failure. The market loves the forever growth strategy.

charcircuit 4y ago

It would be good for AWS employees because you don't have factory workers ruining your benefits due to nondiscrimination rules. Factory workers not paying into a 401k screws up everyone else in the company.

kennywinker 4y ago
This is an expression of some terrible worker solidarity. Factory workers are not paying into the 401k because they're underpaid and living paycheck to paycheck. As a non-warehouse worker, you could be advocating for them to be lifted out of poverty so they can also participate in retirement savings like you, instead of advocating for severing the company into two classes of workers. You have more in common with a warehouse worker than with a major shareholder.