6 ms·

You’re saying conflicting things, Amazon “leads raising wages” to you but then “it’s not possible to hire X at rate Y so people have to pay more.” Amazon has t

You’re saying conflicting things, Amazon “leads raising wages” to you but then “it’s not possible to hire X at rate Y so people have to pay more.” Amazon has to pay more because their jobs are shit. They aren’t doing anything to raise wages they’re just trying to get people’s asses in the door. I’m sort of shocked you linked to the department of labor’s historical page as some sort of proof of your idea. I can guarantee that wage is the minimum they can pay to get people in the door for the level of work required by them calculated by a legion of economists. The fact you think Amazon jobs are competing with “Nannies/house cleaners/employees” is equally strange. Like somehow these jobs are related?! Why do you only compare those jobs to Amazon factory jobs?

hedora 4y ago
Amazon rose wages and have some the highest warehouse worker wages around, to the point where they are creating upward pressure on wages in other industries. Their jobs also are super stressful and burn people out. These things are not contradictory. Anecdotally, in support of the comment you are replying to, Starbucks poached our babysitter. $25/hour is the market rate for babysitters around here, and $100-$150 a night isn't anywhere near enough to screw with her sleep schedule. She works $18/hr morning shifts and now owns a car.
- galleywest200 4y ago
  This seems like a poor comparison. Your babysitter left a part time job (100/25 = 4 hours of work per day) for a full time one and can now afford a car.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Yeah; good for her. The point is that Starbucks and Amazon have created an ever raising floor for the price of labor. They're low-skill/training jobs, so no skilled job is able to pay less than that. (Also, the Starbucks thing is part time, and she had babysat for other people too -- babysitting probably made sense at 2x the hourly rate of a part time job, but $25 isn't 2x anymore.)
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > Starbucks poached our babysitter. $25/hour is the market rate for babysitters around here Seems like $25/hour was the market rate.
  - hedora 4y ago
    I get the impression the dollar amount didn't change. Instead, the existence of the market did. (None of the other parents we know have been able to find babysitters either.) Presumably, it'll even out after the labor shortages subside.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Have you tried offering $2,500 per hour? The market exists. There are babies that need babysitting, and people capable of babysitting. What does not exist is an intersection of the supply and demand curves of people willing and able to pay what people capable of babysitting want to get paid for babysitting.
      - feet 4y ago
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Are we talking about nannies or a sitter for a random single night? Are there no teenagers in the neighborhood who want an “easy” 4 hours work? That’s what we did with my son (late 90s). Same as my parents did with me and my sister (early 80s).
      - mh- 4y ago
        If he's in SF.. probably not, actually.
mightyham 4y ago
>their jobs are shit I have a couple friends that have worked at Amazon warehouses and also worked at shipping centers for UPS and FedEx and they both told me that Amazon not only paid better but had better working conditions. Not saying that's the case universally, but I don't think it's right to uniquely criticize Amazon and not the industry at large, especially if Amazon really is a better employer than their competition.

hedora 4y ago

Amazon rose wages and have some the highest warehouse worker wages around, to the point where they are creating upward pressure on wages in other industries. Their jobs also are super stressful and burn people out. These things are not contradictory. Anecdotally, in support of the comment you are replying to, Starbucks poached our babysitter. $25/hour is the market rate for babysitters around here, and $100-$150 a night isn't anywhere near enough to screw with her sleep schedule. She works $18/hr morning shifts and now owns a car.

galleywest200 4y ago
This seems like a poor comparison. Your babysitter left a part time job (100/25 = 4 hours of work per day) for a full time one and can now afford a car.
- hedora 4y ago
  Yeah; good for her. The point is that Starbucks and Amazon have created an ever raising floor for the price of labor. They're low-skill/training jobs, so no skilled job is able to pay less than that. (Also, the Starbucks thing is part time, and she had babysat for other people too -- babysitting probably made sense at 2x the hourly rate of a part time job, but $25 isn't 2x anymore.)
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Starbucks poached our babysitter. $25/hour is the market rate for babysitters around here Seems like $25/hour was the market rate.
- hedora 4y ago
  I get the impression the dollar amount didn't change. Instead, the existence of the market did. (None of the other parents we know have been able to find babysitters either.) Presumably, it'll even out after the labor shortages subside.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Have you tried offering $2,500 per hour? The market exists. There are babies that need babysitting, and people capable of babysitting. What does not exist is an intersection of the supply and demand curves of people willing and able to pay what people capable of babysitting want to get paid for babysitting.
    - feet 4y ago
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Are we talking about nannies or a sitter for a random single night? Are there no teenagers in the neighborhood who want an “easy” 4 hours work? That’s what we did with my son (late 90s). Same as my parents did with me and my sister (early 80s).
    - mh- 4y ago
      If he's in SF.. probably not, actually.

mightyham 4y ago

>their jobs are shit I have a couple friends that have worked at Amazon warehouses and also worked at shipping centers for UPS and FedEx and they both told me that Amazon not only paid better but had better working conditions. Not saying that's the case universally, but I don't think it's right to uniquely criticize Amazon and not the industry at large, especially if Amazon really is a better employer than their competition.