13 ms·

> "At the Neath working men's club down the road, one of the staff tells me that Amazon is "the employer of last resort". It's where you get a job if you can't

> "At the Neath working men's club down the road, one of the staff tells me that Amazon is "the employer of last resort". It's where you get a job if you can't get a job anywhere else. And it's this that's so heartbreaking." So Amazon is the only employer offering jobs to people who tend to be rejected everywhere else, providing people that have no skills to offer to society a chance at getting a job, learning some skills and maybe getting a better job rather than staying at home and living on welfare, which is lower than Amazon wages and provides no future. Please, remind me why Amazon should be blamed for this and not praised.

collyw 13y ago
Your stance is based purely on the opinion that there are more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone has a choice. Now take away that assumption and see if your opinion still hold weight. Do you think Foxconn are great for the same reasons?
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  > Your stance is based purely on the opinion that there are more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone has a choice. Not at all. I wrote that the alternative would be living on welfare with no prospects and no opportunities to learn skills. Amazon is offering a real job instead. > Do you think Foxconn are great for the same reasons? Yes, they are. They offer wages way higher than the medium salary in China. Why do you think everybody wants to work for them? Nobody is being forced to work there. The alternative would be having no jobs at all. Socialists want to impose very high minimum wages, but the reality is that very high minimum wages imposed by law just creates more unemployment and more misery, the very thing socialists are supposed to oppose but keep creating everywhere they get power.
  - simplemath 13y ago
    Libertarians, the Dr. Seuss crowd of the economic world.
    - theraccoundude 13y ago
      Wacky and wisdom-filled?
  - Fuxy 13y ago
    I would wager you have no idea what it means to be in a situation where the employer has all the cards and they will offer you a wage that is just high enough to keep you alive so you can come in the next day. Amazon is a great business but a shitty employer. Not to mention it's almost impossible for a unskilled worker to learn some skills that would make him a more valuable employee. They are reluctant to even hire them permanently not to mention giving them a chance to progress. It's easy to say that in your position, you have options, not everybody does and may or may not have anything to do with the skill that person has. I come from a place where it's impossible to get a decent wage whatever your skill level the only way to survive is to do shady stuff or open your own business which more likely then not will have to do some shady accounting in order to survive.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      it's almost impossible for a unskilled worker to learn some skills that would make him a more valuable employee. Any job experience is a step up from none. By keeping your eyes and ears open you can learn a lot and if you can demonstrate that by having a coherent conversation about warehouse operations or shipping logistics with another employer you might find yourself with better job prospects eventually.
    - rahimnathwani 13y ago
      Which place is that? How does shady accounting help the business/owner survive? By evading taxes?
      - Fuxy 13y ago
        Obliviously. When taxes are unreasonable that's your only option.
    - adharmad 13y ago
      And such conditions are created by coercive and socialist governments, not companies like Amazon.
      - 13y ago
  - sanskritabelt 13y ago
    "Nobody is being forced to work there" That might not be entirely in accord with actual facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/technology/foxconn-said-to-use-forced-student-labor-to-make-iphones.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/technology/foxconn-said-to... http://kotaku.com/report-college-students-forced-to-make-playstation-4-1443353519 http://kotaku.com/report-college-students-forced-to-make-pla... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/forced-student-labor-is-central-to-the-chinese-economic-miracle/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/forced-student-labor-i...
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    I wrote that the alternative would be living on welfare with no prospects and no opportunities to learn skills. Sounds pretty good. Amazon is offering a real job instead. As compared to what, a fake job? What does "real" add in this context, except dragging in a needless comparison to posturing sentences like "a real man never calls an ambulance". "Real" translating to hard work for low pay?
gizmo 13y ago
> Please, remind me why Amazon should be blamed for this and not praised. Because taking advantage of desperate people isn't an honorable thing to do. People are willing to put up with all sorts of abuse in order to keep their family afloat, but that doesn't justify anything.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  > Because taking advantage of desperate people isn't an honorable thing to do. They're not. They're offering them a decent job for a decent wage knowing that these people are totally unskilled. The alternative would be living on welfare. The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs. And again, what would be the alternative for people with no skills? Unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills etc. No thanks.
  - jon-wood 13y ago
    > The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Or alternatively, that most of the workers on a wage low enough that missing a day of work isn't a viable option for them.
    - cmarschner 13y ago
      The unions have war chests that compensate salary during strikes.
      - cdcarter 13y ago
        It depends on how recently organized the union is, and how secure those members feel and how much of that was afforded by the union. Many members of weaker industrial (not craft) unions are afraid to strike with their brothers.
      - jtbigwoo 13y ago
        I don't know about Germany, but in the U.S. it's common that only the union leaders and negotiators get paid their normal salaries during strikes and lockouts. The rank-and-file members get a reduced amount or nothing from the union. (Or sometimes just health benefits.) For example, the recently locked-out American Crystal Sugar workers got a stipend of $100/week and no other benefits. Their normal salaries averaged about $750/week.
nollidge 13y ago
What a dishonest, bullshit question. No one's blaming Amazon for the particular facts you mention. They're blaming them for exploiting their advantage as the only employer offering such jobs. And even if they weren't being exploitative, why on earth would a company hiring people deserve praise? It's not like they're doing it out of charity - they need work done, they hire people.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  > They're blaming them for exploiting their advantage as the only employer offering such jobs. The very reason they are hiring unskilled people is because they don't have to pay them a lot. Don't you understand? If Amazon was forced to pay them a lot, they'd prefer better skilled people and those very people you're trying to help would be unemployed thanks to you. I think they're doing fine without your unhelpful concerns. > It's not like they're doing it out of charity - they need work done, they hire people. By that logic, why blame them either even if they were exploiting the workers. They're just hiring people because they need work done and to be profitable like any other companies.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    > I think they're doing fine without your unhelpful concerns. Oh, they're fine? Is that why they're fucking striking? I assure you I did not force them to strike, my learnëd friend. This might be shocking to you, but even poor people can think for themselves. > why blame them either even if they were exploiting the workers. ............because they're fucking exploiting them? Did you think "exploit" means "pat on the back" or something?
    - lsaferite 13y ago
      Not that I agree with Amazon's employment tactics regarding warehouse workers, but the definition of exploit is not negative in connotation. I would expect any employer to fully 'exploit' their workforce. exploit (v) - make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)
sudomal 13y ago
That's the sort of thing an employer or some government official would say to give it a positive spin. If Amazon wanted to be praised, they would make the work environment more comparative to other local employers and get a good reputation.
jayshahtx 13y ago
Replace Amazon with Foxconn and tell me you still feel the same way
rayiner 13y ago
At least with Amazon and several other low-wage employers, the issue isn't wages per se but how workers are treated otherwise. See: http://www.thenation.com/article/177377/holiday-crush?page=0,0 http://www.thenation.com/article/177377/holiday-crush?page=0.... If the equilibrium wage is $9/hour, so be it, but that doesn't justify not treating people like human beings. Telling them to show up early but not paying them for that time, micromanagement of bathroom breaks, unsafe or uncomfortable work conditions, not paying for being on call, etc. These aren't justified by labor market dynamics--it's indecent treatment of workers just because they have no other options. From the linked article: "Though out of work, Rodriguez is surprisingly upbeat. 'The warehouses aren’t bad,' he tells me. 'If they treat people better and pay us what we’re owed, the work could be very good. It is honest work.'"
- htf 13y ago
  Better work conditions would mean higher costs to Amazon.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    So?
    - htf 13y ago
      These better work conditions would come at a cost. The money has to come from somewhere. You can't just complain that Amazon doesn't treat their employees well enough without explaining where you would get the money to improve their work conditions.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        If society decides that even low-paid workers should be treated with a modicum of respect (e.g. actually getting paid for the time they work, not being treated like automatons), it's the employer's problem to figure out how to pay for work conditions that meet the standard.
      - 13y ago
cases 13y ago
So the workers took on these low wage jobs instead of staying at home and living on welfare. They are using their legal right to strike as a way to increase their compensation and thereby improving the lives of their families. They applied for these jobs and Amazon hired them. No one forced Amazon to take on these unskilled workers. Please, remind me why these workers should be blamed for this and not praised?
- adharmad 13y ago
  They should neither be blamed, nor praised, and nor should be Amazon.
marincounty 13y ago
Germany's economy sounds like the United States economy years ago. I don't hear American workers complaining about working in warehouses. Why--? Because in America we don't have the luxury of complaining anymore. As to "staying at home and living on welfare"; there's no welfare Dude, besides food stamps and section 8(which is next to impossible to relocate). So yes Dude--America has more than a few problems. Be careful what you regurgitate; Today you might be in a cube looking at a screen. I have a feeling those days are numbered, and unless you have a highly technical, regulated profession -- you are dispensable. Computer Programing is something that crosses borders. It will eventually go to the lowest bidder. Welcome to "The world of crappy jobs". And America doesn't need a higher minimum wage?
- dchest 13y ago
  I don't hear American workers complaining about working in warehouses. Then hear it now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#Poor_working_conditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#Poor_working_conditi...
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  > Computer Programing is something that crosses borders. It will eventually go to the lowest bidder. Yeah, people have been saying that for years, yet somehow the salaries for programmers in the U.S. keep going up.
aidos 13y ago
What if it's Amazon's position of power that forces people out of work and into the cold embrace of Amazon in the first place? When I first moved to London 10 years ago I watched as Starbucks moved aggressively into the area of London in which I was working. They decimated smaller outlets and put people out of work. I literally saw people who had previously worked at other establishments working at Starbucks - almost certainly for for less pay. As a thought experiment, imagine that it's taken to it's full conclusion. Amazon is all that is left, all other shops and distributors are shut down. Now you have a large mass of incredibly unhappy people who have been forced into the position of working for minimum wage by power structures outside of their control. People with barely the means to survive. They don't enjoy any of the luxuries many of us have today. There's no way out for them, and there's probably no way out for their children. What happens when something triggers that group of individuals to revolt? It wouldn't be the first time that's happened in England [0]. Don't get me wrong, I think Amazon are an incredible operation. Possibly the finest logistics organisation that's ever existed - physically and increasingly virtually too. The question is, what is the cost to society, especially in lower socio-economic areas? I think we need to look very critically on anything that clearly widens the wealth divide. Even more so when unethical means are used to shift money from broader society to those organisations in the first place [1]. In a world without Amazon maybe many of these "people who tend to be rejected everywhere else" would have gainful employment and the rest of us would just have to pay and extra few quid for the tat that we don't even need in the first place. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt [1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/15/amazon-uk-tax-3m
- adharmad 13y ago
  But what is stopping someone from opening competing operations to Amazon, compete with Amazon in the marketplace, provide more choice to workers, thus driving their salaries up? What is stopping the workers from learning some useful skill and bringing more economic worth to their jobs as opposed to a skill that will be automated 5 years down the line?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > But what is stopping someone from opening competing operations to Amazon, compete with Amazon in the marketplace, provide more choice to workers, thus driving their salaries up? Well it's a nice hypothetical, but has very little support historically. In fact the trend is completely opposite; Amazon swoops in and other businesses fold. The theoretical thing stopping it is simply the initial capital costs and (more importantly) the embodied body of knowledge, gained over a long period of time of "how best to win at logistics". One does not simply hang their tile and beat Amazon at <price, service, convenience>, there's a lot of effort that goes into making Amazon as efficient as it is that cannot be simply duplicated by a random VC-backed startup. It is for that reason that the old libertarian trope about "just wait for some entrepreneur to start a better competitor" is so out-of-touch... people are going to be waiting a long time, but they need to eat today.
kaonashi 13y ago
There's no inalienable right to a starvation disciplined pool of cheap labor. If Amazon can't make its business work while paying employees a living wage, there's no sound economic reason it should be allowed to operate.
- robryan 13y ago
  Well, there is nothing stopping Germany bringing in a minimum wage which is set at a higher level than this Amazon pay. Otherwise Amazon has every right to pay at this level.
  - gasparhaspar 13y ago
    If you require employers to pay an employee more than his work earns the company, that employer will go out of business or move operations or hire fewer employees.
yonks 13y ago
> people that have no skills to offer to society If you sincerely believe this I think you are morally bankrupt. Since this is HN also have a think about the value of human labour and the current wealth of nations.
coldtea 13y ago
>Please, remind me why Amazon should be blamed for this and not praised. The fact that they would have been left to starve does not make the person who, exploting their need, had them work like shit for shitty money in exchange any better. Similarly, the fact that a person gives $20 for a crack addicted woman to do him "favors", does not make him a benefactor compared to those who had nothing to offer her.
pointernil 13y ago
Because there is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesinnungsethik http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesinnungsethik and then there is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verantwortungsethik http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verantwortungsethik ... and the later Amazon seams not to care very much about when setting up their working places/conditions and contracts, all of which when embedded in the real world right now "try" to establish new standards which ignore the damages. Other parts of the society have quite different ideas about the future of work even if it is low-skill-work.

collyw 13y ago

Your stance is based purely on the opinion that there are more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone has a choice. Now take away that assumption and see if your opinion still hold weight. Do you think Foxconn are great for the same reasons?

patrickaljord 13y ago
> Your stance is based purely on the opinion that there are more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone has a choice. Not at all. I wrote that the alternative would be living on welfare with no prospects and no opportunities to learn skills. Amazon is offering a real job instead. > Do you think Foxconn are great for the same reasons? Yes, they are. They offer wages way higher than the medium salary in China. Why do you think everybody wants to work for them? Nobody is being forced to work there. The alternative would be having no jobs at all. Socialists want to impose very high minimum wages, but the reality is that very high minimum wages imposed by law just creates more unemployment and more misery, the very thing socialists are supposed to oppose but keep creating everywhere they get power.
- simplemath 13y ago
  Libertarians, the Dr. Seuss crowd of the economic world.
  - theraccoundude 13y ago
    Wacky and wisdom-filled?
- Fuxy 13y ago
  I would wager you have no idea what it means to be in a situation where the employer has all the cards and they will offer you a wage that is just high enough to keep you alive so you can come in the next day. Amazon is a great business but a shitty employer. Not to mention it's almost impossible for a unskilled worker to learn some skills that would make him a more valuable employee. They are reluctant to even hire them permanently not to mention giving them a chance to progress. It's easy to say that in your position, you have options, not everybody does and may or may not have anything to do with the skill that person has. I come from a place where it's impossible to get a decent wage whatever your skill level the only way to survive is to do shady stuff or open your own business which more likely then not will have to do some shady accounting in order to survive.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    it's almost impossible for a unskilled worker to learn some skills that would make him a more valuable employee. Any job experience is a step up from none. By keeping your eyes and ears open you can learn a lot and if you can demonstrate that by having a coherent conversation about warehouse operations or shipping logistics with another employer you might find yourself with better job prospects eventually.
  - rahimnathwani 13y ago
    Which place is that? How does shady accounting help the business/owner survive? By evading taxes?
    - Fuxy 13y ago
      Obliviously. When taxes are unreasonable that's your only option.
  - adharmad 13y ago
    And such conditions are created by coercive and socialist governments, not companies like Amazon.
    - 13y ago
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  "Nobody is being forced to work there" That might not be entirely in accord with actual facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/technology/foxconn-said-to-use-forced-student-labor-to-make-iphones.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/technology/foxconn-said-to... http://kotaku.com/report-college-students-forced-to-make-playstation-4-1443353519 http://kotaku.com/report-college-students-forced-to-make-pla... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/forced-student-labor-is-central-to-the-chinese-economic-miracle/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/forced-student-labor-i...
- jodrellblank 13y ago
  I wrote that the alternative would be living on welfare with no prospects and no opportunities to learn skills. Sounds pretty good. Amazon is offering a real job instead. As compared to what, a fake job? What does "real" add in this context, except dragging in a needless comparison to posturing sentences like "a real man never calls an ambulance". "Real" translating to hard work for low pay?

gizmo 13y ago

> Please, remind me why Amazon should be blamed for this and not praised. Because taking advantage of desperate people isn't an honorable thing to do. People are willing to put up with all sorts of abuse in order to keep their family afloat, but that doesn't justify anything.

patrickaljord 13y ago
> Because taking advantage of desperate people isn't an honorable thing to do. They're not. They're offering them a decent job for a decent wage knowing that these people are totally unskilled. The alternative would be living on welfare. The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs. And again, what would be the alternative for people with no skills? Unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills etc. No thanks.
- jon-wood 13y ago
  > The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs. Or alternatively, that most of the workers on a wage low enough that missing a day of work isn't a viable option for them.
  - cmarschner 13y ago
    The unions have war chests that compensate salary during strikes.
    - cdcarter 13y ago
      It depends on how recently organized the union is, and how secure those members feel and how much of that was afforded by the union. Many members of weaker industrial (not craft) unions are afraid to strike with their brothers.
    - jtbigwoo 13y ago
      I don't know about Germany, but in the U.S. it's common that only the union leaders and negotiators get paid their normal salaries during strikes and lockouts. The rank-and-file members get a reduced amount or nothing from the union. (Or sometimes just health benefits.) For example, the recently locked-out American Crystal Sugar workers got a stipend of $100/week and no other benefits. Their normal salaries averaged about $750/week.

nollidge 13y ago

What a dishonest, bullshit question. No one's blaming Amazon for the particular facts you mention. They're blaming them for exploiting their advantage as the only employer offering such jobs. And even if they weren't being exploitative, why on earth would a company hiring people deserve praise? It's not like they're doing it out of charity - they need work done, they hire people.

patrickaljord 13y ago
> They're blaming them for exploiting their advantage as the only employer offering such jobs. The very reason they are hiring unskilled people is because they don't have to pay them a lot. Don't you understand? If Amazon was forced to pay them a lot, they'd prefer better skilled people and those very people you're trying to help would be unemployed thanks to you. I think they're doing fine without your unhelpful concerns. > It's not like they're doing it out of charity - they need work done, they hire people. By that logic, why blame them either even if they were exploiting the workers. They're just hiring people because they need work done and to be profitable like any other companies.
- nollidge 13y ago
  > I think they're doing fine without your unhelpful concerns. Oh, they're fine? Is that why they're fucking striking? I assure you I did not force them to strike, my learnëd friend. This might be shocking to you, but even poor people can think for themselves. > why blame them either even if they were exploiting the workers. ............because they're fucking exploiting them? Did you think "exploit" means "pat on the back" or something?
  - lsaferite 13y ago
    Not that I agree with Amazon's employment tactics regarding warehouse workers, but the definition of exploit is not negative in connotation. I would expect any employer to fully 'exploit' their workforce. exploit (v) - make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)

sudomal 13y ago

That's the sort of thing an employer or some government official would say to give it a positive spin. If Amazon wanted to be praised, they would make the work environment more comparative to other local employers and get a good reputation.

jayshahtx 13y ago

Replace Amazon with Foxconn and tell me you still feel the same way

rayiner 13y ago

At least with Amazon and several other low-wage employers, the issue isn't wages per se but how workers are treated otherwise. See: http://www.thenation.com/article/177377/holiday-crush?page=0,0 http://www.thenation.com/article/177377/holiday-crush?page=0.... If the equilibrium wage is $9/hour, so be it, but that doesn't justify not treating people like human beings. Telling them to show up early but not paying them for that time, micromanagement of bathroom breaks, unsafe or uncomfortable work conditions, not paying for being on call, etc. These aren't justified by labor market dynamics--it's indecent treatment of workers just because they have no other options. From the linked article: "Though out of work, Rodriguez is surprisingly upbeat. 'The warehouses aren’t bad,' he tells me. 'If they treat people better and pay us what we’re owed, the work could be very good. It is honest work.'"

htf 13y ago
Better work conditions would mean higher costs to Amazon.
- rayiner 13y ago
  So?
  - htf 13y ago
    These better work conditions would come at a cost. The money has to come from somewhere. You can't just complain that Amazon doesn't treat their employees well enough without explaining where you would get the money to improve their work conditions.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      If society decides that even low-paid workers should be treated with a modicum of respect (e.g. actually getting paid for the time they work, not being treated like automatons), it's the employer's problem to figure out how to pay for work conditions that meet the standard.
    - 13y ago

cases 13y ago

So the workers took on these low wage jobs instead of staying at home and living on welfare. They are using their legal right to strike as a way to increase their compensation and thereby improving the lives of their families. They applied for these jobs and Amazon hired them. No one forced Amazon to take on these unskilled workers. Please, remind me why these workers should be blamed for this and not praised?

adharmad 13y ago
They should neither be blamed, nor praised, and nor should be Amazon.

marincounty 13y ago

Germany's economy sounds like the United States economy years ago. I don't hear American workers complaining about working in warehouses. Why--? Because in America we don't have the luxury of complaining anymore. As to "staying at home and living on welfare"; there's no welfare Dude, besides food stamps and section 8(which is next to impossible to relocate). So yes Dude--America has more than a few problems. Be careful what you regurgitate; Today you might be in a cube looking at a screen. I have a feeling those days are numbered, and unless you have a highly technical, regulated profession -- you are dispensable. Computer Programing is something that crosses borders. It will eventually go to the lowest bidder. Welcome to "The world of crappy jobs". And America doesn't need a higher minimum wage?

dchest 13y ago
I don't hear American workers complaining about working in warehouses. Then hear it now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#Poor_working_conditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com#Poor_working_conditi...
adamnemecek 13y ago
> Computer Programing is something that crosses borders. It will eventually go to the lowest bidder. Yeah, people have been saying that for years, yet somehow the salaries for programmers in the U.S. keep going up.

aidos 13y ago

What if it's Amazon's position of power that forces people out of work and into the cold embrace of Amazon in the first place? When I first moved to London 10 years ago I watched as Starbucks moved aggressively into the area of London in which I was working. They decimated smaller outlets and put people out of work. I literally saw people who had previously worked at other establishments working at Starbucks - almost certainly for for less pay. As a thought experiment, imagine that it's taken to it's full conclusion. Amazon is all that is left, all other shops and distributors are shut down. Now you have a large mass of incredibly unhappy people who have been forced into the position of working for minimum wage by power structures outside of their control. People with barely the means to survive. They don't enjoy any of the luxuries many of us have today. There's no way out for them, and there's probably no way out for their children. What happens when something triggers that group of individuals to revolt? It wouldn't be the first time that's happened in England [0]. Don't get me wrong, I think Amazon are an incredible operation. Possibly the finest logistics organisation that's ever existed - physically and increasingly virtually too. The question is, what is the cost to society, especially in lower socio-economic areas? I think we need to look very critically on anything that clearly widens the wealth divide. Even more so when unethical means are used to shift money from broader society to those organisations in the first place [1]. In a world without Amazon maybe many of these "people who tend to be rejected everywhere else" would have gainful employment and the rest of us would just have to pay and extra few quid for the tat that we don't even need in the first place. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt [1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/15/amazon-uk-tax-3m

adharmad 13y ago
But what is stopping someone from opening competing operations to Amazon, compete with Amazon in the marketplace, provide more choice to workers, thus driving their salaries up? What is stopping the workers from learning some useful skill and bringing more economic worth to their jobs as opposed to a skill that will be automated 5 years down the line?
- mpyne 13y ago
  > But what is stopping someone from opening competing operations to Amazon, compete with Amazon in the marketplace, provide more choice to workers, thus driving their salaries up? Well it's a nice hypothetical, but has very little support historically. In fact the trend is completely opposite; Amazon swoops in and other businesses fold. The theoretical thing stopping it is simply the initial capital costs and (more importantly) the embodied body of knowledge, gained over a long period of time of "how best to win at logistics". One does not simply hang their tile and beat Amazon at <price, service, convenience>, there's a lot of effort that goes into making Amazon as efficient as it is that cannot be simply duplicated by a random VC-backed startup. It is for that reason that the old libertarian trope about "just wait for some entrepreneur to start a better competitor" is so out-of-touch... people are going to be waiting a long time, but they need to eat today.

kaonashi 13y ago

There's no inalienable right to a starvation disciplined pool of cheap labor. If Amazon can't make its business work while paying employees a living wage, there's no sound economic reason it should be allowed to operate.

robryan 13y ago
Well, there is nothing stopping Germany bringing in a minimum wage which is set at a higher level than this Amazon pay. Otherwise Amazon has every right to pay at this level.
- gasparhaspar 13y ago
  If you require employers to pay an employee more than his work earns the company, that employer will go out of business or move operations or hire fewer employees.

yonks 13y ago

> people that have no skills to offer to society If you sincerely believe this I think you are morally bankrupt. Since this is HN also have a think about the value of human labour and the current wealth of nations.

coldtea 13y ago

>Please, remind me why Amazon should be blamed for this and not praised. The fact that they would have been left to starve does not make the person who, exploting their need, had them work like shit for shitty money in exchange any better. Similarly, the fact that a person gives $20 for a crack addicted woman to do him "favors", does not make him a benefactor compared to those who had nothing to offer her.

pointernil 13y ago

Because there is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesinnungsethik http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesinnungsethik and then there is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verantwortungsethik http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verantwortungsethik ... and the later Amazon seams not to care very much about when setting up their working places/conditions and contracts, all of which when embedded in the real world right now "try" to establish new standards which ignore the damages. Other parts of the society have quite different ideas about the future of work even if it is low-skill-work.