4 ms·

> 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 yo

by 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
        In this case, it's not the wages, it's the fact that they can't work for more than 11 months and that there's no chance of upward mobility. A person with no experience is given a 'real' job while a temp isn't even considered.
        throwaway1979 13y ago
        There is a recent book called "End of the Good Life" ... it has one too many stories in there but covers the problems faced by temporary workers (who are typically young workers). I was surprised to learn what a huge problem this is in Europe.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      That of course assumes there's a price that is "fair" and you have a magic ability - personally or "as a society" - to figure it out while ignoring the markets (because the markets are "unfair"). I wonder how one does that and doesn't end somewhere in the vicinity of Detroit.
WalterBright 13y ago
Old Soviet joke: in capitalist America, man exploits man. In the Soviet Union, it is the other way around!
- bmelton 13y ago
  I don't generally upvote jokes on HN, but I giggled like a schoolgirl at that one.

by bmelton 13y ago

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
      In this case, it's not the wages, it's the fact that they can't work for more than 11 months and that there's no chance of upward mobility. A person with no experience is given a 'real' job while a temp isn't even considered.
      - throwaway1979 13y ago
        There is a recent book called "End of the Good Life" ... it has one too many stories in there but covers the problems faced by temporary workers (who are typically young workers). I was surprised to learn what a huge problem this is in Europe.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    That of course assumes there's a price that is "fair" and you have a magic ability - personally or "as a society" - to figure it out while ignoring the markets (because the markets are "unfair"). I wonder how one does that and doesn't end somewhere in the vicinity of Detroit.

WalterBright 13y ago

Old Soviet joke: in capitalist America, man exploits man. In the Soviet Union, it is the other way around!

bmelton 13y ago
I don't generally upvote jokes on HN, but I giggled like a schoolgirl at that one.