9 ms·
No, because minor increases in labor costs don't change the math much. Amazon is already spending billions to improve automation, these people are doing the job
by tyrfing 4y ago
No, because minor increases in labor costs don't change the math much. Amazon is already spending billions to improve automation, these people are doing the jobs that they cannot reasonably automate. If you assume a magic "develop automation faster" button, companies like Amazon are already paying as many people as possible to mash it around the clock. Why wouldn't they?
You could just as well argue that increased labor costs due to unions means Amazon will be forced to spend less on developing automation, since they don't have the budget for it.
- inglor_cz 4y ago"minor increases in labor costs" Minor increases wouldn't be worth organizing an union over, would they? Or they are on the order of 30-40 per cent, which no longer falls under "minor" and can turn some kind of automation technology barely, but profitable. Not everything is matter of "many people mashing the automation buttons". Business involves a lot of trade-offs and the decision making is pretty complicated. Neither you nor me can really predict all the butterfly effects involved. I wish them success, but presenting the wage/budget situation as totally immune to balance changes is unrealistic.