6 ms·

You don't know what taken advantage of means do you? These days any given new graduate who didn't attend an ivy league is in a situation where it is extremely

You don't know what taken advantage of means do you? These days any given new graduate who didn't attend an ivy league is in a situation where it is extremely difficult to get a job. The alternative to working as a contractor at Amazon is not working at all. This is the situation these contractors are in. When the alternative is being in extreme debt / homeless, a choice cannot be made freely. This is the situation that Amazon and Walmart are taking advantage of, employee these people as hourly, no benefits contractors. Obviously there's the argument that Amazon and Walmart are being 'good' providing them with hourly pay when they would otherwise be paid nothing. This, however, doesn't mean they're not taking advantage of the people they hire as contractors. I would also not argue, but hold as a belief that it is extremely immoral to not pay the people who are struggling to help the company succeed, in order to pay people who are already wealthy more. Before you explode with economic principles of how they are being paid what they're worth due to the harsh job market conditions, save your breath, I already know. The thinking is right from a market philosophy perspective, but these principles also weaken the company, and I would say are actually wrong from a perspective of building and growing a successful business.

bmelton 13y ago
> You don't know what taken advantage of means do you? Yes, I do, and I'd appreciate you not starting off posts being invective in the future. I'd downvote you for that if I could, even though I acknowledge you make an otherwise neutral point. I'm not suggesting that Amazon is being good or evil, but I don't see any advantage having been taken. As Nostromo stated in a higher-voted thread, the unemployment rate in Seattle is currently at 4%, which is pretty good. > The alternative to working as a contractor at Amazon is not working at all. I don't see that having been suggested in the article at all. Regardless, some temporary work on a real product right after college seems like exactly the kind of thing I wish had been around when I was younger. What I'm not seeing is that there was anything exploitative going on. Amazon paid a fair market wage, or at least I didn't see anything in the article to suggest he was making Walmart level wages. I don't see that the working conditions were harsh, or otherwise problematic beyond the normal level of office politics. If these principles weaken the company, then I again don't see how that is taking advantage of the article's author. I'm not suggesting that these are amazing working conditions, or that it's doing Amazon any favors, but at the same time, I don't see that anybody was taken advantage of either.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Fun bit of trivia: in a Marxist framework, where the whole 'exploitation' thing came from, it's actually assumed that the worker gets paid a fair market wage. Exploitation doesn't actually rely on someone being paid less than their fair share. I'm not saying that people here are using that term in it's technical way, but people have different opinions on what 'exploited' means, and it can cause friction.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Which is why I'm trying to figure out what, specifically, is being objected to. I'm getting the sense that there is a context beyond the article that I am not familiar with, which is fair enough, I suppose, but I don't see anything in the article to suggest that this employment was in any way unusual or exploitative, at least, not as I understand it.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      Taking off my Marx hat, generally, people mean something along the lines of "an employer can take advantage of the fact that people will take any work rather than starve, and this drives wages down to a point that's unfair." In other words, an employer can exploit the fact that people are desperate. So yes, it may have been a contract that they 'voluntarily' agreed to for a wage they 'voluntarily' agreed to, but that doesn't mean it's not a shitty position, and we should try to do better, as a society.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        And that would be a fine argument, I suppose, if I'd seen anything in the article about the wages. Like I said though, if that's the case, it's either outside the scope of this article, or I just missed it. Is that indeed the case, that Amazon is paying exploitative wages for these positions?
        steveklabnik 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

> You don't know what taken advantage of means do you? Yes, I do, and I'd appreciate you not starting off posts being invective in the future. I'd downvote you for that if I could, even though I acknowledge you make an otherwise neutral point. I'm not suggesting that Amazon is being good or evil, but I don't see any advantage having been taken. As Nostromo stated in a higher-voted thread, the unemployment rate in Seattle is currently at 4%, which is pretty good. > The alternative to working as a contractor at Amazon is not working at all. I don't see that having been suggested in the article at all. Regardless, some temporary work on a real product right after college seems like exactly the kind of thing I wish had been around when I was younger. What I'm not seeing is that there was anything exploitative going on. Amazon paid a fair market wage, or at least I didn't see anything in the article to suggest he was making Walmart level wages. I don't see that the working conditions were harsh, or otherwise problematic beyond the normal level of office politics. If these principles weaken the company, then I again don't see how that is taking advantage of the article's author. I'm not suggesting that these are amazing working conditions, or that it's doing Amazon any favors, but at the same time, I don't see that anybody was taken advantage of either.

steveklabnik 13y ago
Fun bit of trivia: in a Marxist framework, where the whole 'exploitation' thing came from, it's actually assumed that the worker gets paid a fair market wage. Exploitation doesn't actually rely on someone being paid less than their fair share. I'm not saying that people here are using that term in it's technical way, but people have different opinions on what 'exploited' means, and it can cause friction.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Which is why I'm trying to figure out what, specifically, is being objected to. I'm getting the sense that there is a context beyond the article that I am not familiar with, which is fair enough, I suppose, but I don't see anything in the article to suggest that this employment was in any way unusual or exploitative, at least, not as I understand it.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    Taking off my Marx hat, generally, people mean something along the lines of "an employer can take advantage of the fact that people will take any work rather than starve, and this drives wages down to a point that's unfair." In other words, an employer can exploit the fact that people are desperate. So yes, it may have been a contract that they 'voluntarily' agreed to for a wage they 'voluntarily' agreed to, but that doesn't mean it's not a shitty position, and we should try to do better, as a society.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      And that would be a fine argument, I suppose, if I'd seen anything in the article about the wages. Like I said though, if that's the case, it's either outside the scope of this article, or I just missed it. Is that indeed the case, that Amazon is paying exploitative wages for these positions?
      - steveklabnik 13y ago