5 ms·

Won’t Amazon try to find ways to replace as many of those human workers as possible? Clark says that won’t happen, because the rise in productivity will

Won’t Amazon try to find ways to replace as many of those human workers as possible? Clark says that won’t happen, because the rise in productivity will give Amazon the means to grow. And growth means Amazon will need to hire more people. I find this idea pretty interesting. That the amount of jobs stays the same even though robots do more and more of the stuff humans did in the past. So far it seems to hold true. We came a long way since the stone age and there still is useful stuff to do. Maybe this will not change until robots are better at everything. Strong AI etc. But then we will probably somehow merge with the robots. Enhance ourselves with technology. And stay competitive. Maybe jobs are forever.

pjmlp 12y ago
I don't believe it. Amazon is known in Germany for abusing the system and paying as less as possible, while squeezing as much hours as possible to employers from their German sites. Basically people at the job center get an offer that they cannot refuse, as they are unemployed, at the very minimum Amazon can get away with, without any kind of compensation for overtime. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/amazon-strike/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/amazon-strike/ EDIT: Downvoting me every time I mention Amazon worker rights exploitation wont make them go away.
- mlrtime 12y ago
  Is amazon committing illegal acts in Germany? One of the articles you linked to states that Amazon is already paying higher than average wages.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    > Is amazon committing illegal acts in Germany? No, but they are on the borderline of what is acceptable in German society. > One of the articles you linked to states that Amazon is already paying higher than average wages. I have not read them, as I was just trying to fetch some English related information for the HN audience. The information I have, from memory, is from German newspapers. The whole situation worked as follows: - offer a job to people at the job center (quite nice) - since they are at job center, the job cannot be refused unless for special reasons - pay them the bare minimum, almost lower than the unemployment fund after taxes - have them work extra-hours without compensation - let them go, re-hire from the endless pool at job center Also the guys doing deliveries, are at multiple levels of sub-contractors. Have a wage that barely pays the fuel and monthly expenses, with a variable bonus attached to the amount of successful deliveries per day. Since they are not to blame for people not being at home, they try to deliver the packages to just about anyone in the neighbourhood, thus leaving a information to collect at place X, not always the post office. There was an undercover story about this a couple of years ago, done by a famous German reporter, Günter Wallraff. Maybe this situation today is different and has improved a lot, but this was how it used to be from the newspapers info.
    - prostoalex 12y ago
      Two of these are government-created problems, if the government would like to solve them, they can rewrite the rules > since they are at job center, the job cannot be refused unless for special reasons > pay them the bare minimum, almost lower than the unemployment fund after taxes This one is illegal, with enough proof it should be easy to fix in courts > have them work extra-hours without compensation And two of these seem to be neutral on society > offer a job to people at the job center (quite nice) > let them go, re-hire from the endless pool at job center
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        > This one is illegal, with enough proof it should be easy to fix in courts Since when? Do you live in Germany? Do you remember the issues a few years ago with Hartz-IV and recruiting people for "Spargelstechen", as Hartz-IV was better than the salary being offered?
    - mlrtime 12y ago
      It seems as if English is not your first language. You make some good points but do not assume that people are down-voting you because they don't agree with your opinions.
    - pktgen 12y ago
      > - have them work extra-hours without compensation I'm not familiar with German labor laws, but I know this is (typically) illegal in the US and I suspect that can't be different in other first world countries. Is it?
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        There is a limit under which it is allowed.
        pktgen 12y ago
        Hmm, I may have misunderstood. When you say "without compensation," do you mean they're still getting their normal hourly wage but without any additional compensation (overtime) for working the extra hours? Or $0 compensation at all for working that time? I was originally under the impression you meant $0 compensation at all, but I suspect I'm misunderstanding now.
crc32 12y ago
For me, "The amount of jobs" is not the only factor, the quality of the job matters as well. That paragraph suggests that the productivity gain benefits workers (labour) as well as the owners, (of capital) because it creates jobs. But each of those jobs could be a low paid, low quality job; as is suggested by the following: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazon-insider-feature-treatment-employees-work http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazo... http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_sick_brutality_and_secret_history_of_ruthlessly_intimidating_workers/ http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_... Yes there may be more (or the same) number of jobs; as suggested by the paragraph. But each of those jobs could be lower paid and lower quality in terms of job satisfaction. So it may still be the case that a greater share of the productivity gain accrues to capital; instead of labour. Rather than freeing us; our existing societal structures may mean that technology instead helps to create a story of inequality - a hollowing out of today's society with "barristers and baristas and no-one in the middle". Whether that society is a moral one; or even a functional one, is a separate question I suppose!
- ghshephard 12y ago
  What I liked about the article on the Kiva Robots at OAK4, is that it emphasized is that the part of the work that's being optimized is the grunt work of moving stuff back and worth - the (relatively) more sophisticated work of identifying the item, verifying the quality, and confirm it's the right element for the order, is done by humans. While it might not be very high on the feeding chain, it's at least a little higher than it was before - and that's a good thing. I'm all for humans being automated out of the low-order activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#mediaviewer/File:Ilia_Efimovich_Repin_(1844-1930)_-_Volga_Boatmen_(1870-1873).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#medi...
  - crc32 12y ago
    This is a positive interpretation of the scenario that may well be valid. Perhaps the question of whether job satisfaction at Amazon has improved or not is a little subjective. I love your linked picture. I think that with it you imply that in the past, technological progress has been linked with higher standards of living for most. I'd agree with that, but I am wary of extrapolating that trend into the future; or maybe just concious that significant social turmoil came along with that progress. Perhaps the situation is not so different, but we are merely doomed to repeat the mistakes of the industrial revolution; during the robotics/knowledge revolution!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
biot 12y ago
What he's avoiding saying is that while the need to hire more people isn't going away those human workers displaced by technology will, in all likelihood, be out of a job because there is now a higher-order job that they are unqualified to do. The savings from from automating the warehouse gets reinvested back into Kiva systems, for example. And it's not a 1:1 replacement either as it takes the elimination of a handful of minimum wage warehouse workers to let Amazon hire just one more engineer.
- chii 12y ago
  but that's the natural progression - if all you can do is move some packages from A to B, then you aren't worth very much, and when time comes that such jobs get automated, you _have_ to either skill up, or "die" off. Being able to make a good living isn't a right.
ddeck 12y ago
>I find this idea pretty interesting. That the amount of jobs stays the same even though robots do more and more of the stuff humans did in the past. So far it seems to hold true. This is only true so long as they are growing. That growth comes from either growth in the end market or by taking market share from competitors. I don't know the numbers, but I suspect a lot of Amazon's growth will be from taking market share due to lower costs because of those productivity gains. If this is the case, then those robots are still displacing jobs, just not at Amazon.
runeks 12y ago
> I find this idea pretty interesting. That the amount of jobs stays the same even though robots do more and more of the stuff humans did in the past. The point is that if the use of robots enables lowering the cost of online shopping, then more people can afford to shop online, and Amazon might even need to hire more people, to keep up with increased demand. It's the simple case of an innovation increasing productivity (less work hours per unit of product produced), which means they can lower prices, and -- possibly -- gain customers. If the increase in sales offsets the increase in productivity, then no workers need to be laid off. Of course, this isn't necessarily the case. An increase in productivity can lead to both layoffs, hiring and neither.

pjmlp 12y ago

I don't believe it. Amazon is known in Germany for abusing the system and paying as less as possible, while squeezing as much hours as possible to employers from their German sites. Basically people at the job center get an offer that they cannot refuse, as they are unemployed, at the very minimum Amazon can get away with, without any kind of compensation for overtime. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/amazon-strike/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/amazon-strike/ EDIT: Downvoting me every time I mention Amazon worker rights exploitation wont make them go away.

mlrtime 12y ago
Is amazon committing illegal acts in Germany? One of the articles you linked to states that Amazon is already paying higher than average wages.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > Is amazon committing illegal acts in Germany? No, but they are on the borderline of what is acceptable in German society. > One of the articles you linked to states that Amazon is already paying higher than average wages. I have not read them, as I was just trying to fetch some English related information for the HN audience. The information I have, from memory, is from German newspapers. The whole situation worked as follows: - offer a job to people at the job center (quite nice) - since they are at job center, the job cannot be refused unless for special reasons - pay them the bare minimum, almost lower than the unemployment fund after taxes - have them work extra-hours without compensation - let them go, re-hire from the endless pool at job center Also the guys doing deliveries, are at multiple levels of sub-contractors. Have a wage that barely pays the fuel and monthly expenses, with a variable bonus attached to the amount of successful deliveries per day. Since they are not to blame for people not being at home, they try to deliver the packages to just about anyone in the neighbourhood, thus leaving a information to collect at place X, not always the post office. There was an undercover story about this a couple of years ago, done by a famous German reporter, Günter Wallraff. Maybe this situation today is different and has improved a lot, but this was how it used to be from the newspapers info.
  - prostoalex 12y ago
    Two of these are government-created problems, if the government would like to solve them, they can rewrite the rules > since they are at job center, the job cannot be refused unless for special reasons > pay them the bare minimum, almost lower than the unemployment fund after taxes This one is illegal, with enough proof it should be easy to fix in courts > have them work extra-hours without compensation And two of these seem to be neutral on society > offer a job to people at the job center (quite nice) > let them go, re-hire from the endless pool at job center
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      > This one is illegal, with enough proof it should be easy to fix in courts Since when? Do you live in Germany? Do you remember the issues a few years ago with Hartz-IV and recruiting people for "Spargelstechen", as Hartz-IV was better than the salary being offered?
  - mlrtime 12y ago
    It seems as if English is not your first language. You make some good points but do not assume that people are down-voting you because they don't agree with your opinions.
  - pktgen 12y ago
    > - have them work extra-hours without compensation I'm not familiar with German labor laws, but I know this is (typically) illegal in the US and I suspect that can't be different in other first world countries. Is it?
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      There is a limit under which it is allowed.
      - pktgen 12y ago
        Hmm, I may have misunderstood. When you say "without compensation," do you mean they're still getting their normal hourly wage but without any additional compensation (overtime) for working the extra hours? Or $0 compensation at all for working that time? I was originally under the impression you meant $0 compensation at all, but I suspect I'm misunderstanding now.

crc32 12y ago

For me, "The amount of jobs" is not the only factor, the quality of the job matters as well. That paragraph suggests that the productivity gain benefits workers (labour) as well as the owners, (of capital) because it creates jobs. But each of those jobs could be a low paid, low quality job; as is suggested by the following: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f... http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazon-insider-feature-treatment-employees-work http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/week-amazo... http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_sick_brutality_and_secret_history_of_ruthlessly_intimidating_workers/ http://www.salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_... Yes there may be more (or the same) number of jobs; as suggested by the paragraph. But each of those jobs could be lower paid and lower quality in terms of job satisfaction. So it may still be the case that a greater share of the productivity gain accrues to capital; instead of labour. Rather than freeing us; our existing societal structures may mean that technology instead helps to create a story of inequality - a hollowing out of today's society with "barristers and baristas and no-one in the middle". Whether that society is a moral one; or even a functional one, is a separate question I suppose!

ghshephard 12y ago
What I liked about the article on the Kiva Robots at OAK4, is that it emphasized is that the part of the work that's being optimized is the grunt work of moving stuff back and worth - the (relatively) more sophisticated work of identifying the item, verifying the quality, and confirm it's the right element for the order, is done by humans. While it might not be very high on the feeding chain, it's at least a little higher than it was before - and that's a good thing. I'm all for humans being automated out of the low-order activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#mediaviewer/File:Ilia_Efimovich_Repin_(1844-1930)_-_Volga_Boatmen_(1870-1873).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barge_Haulers_on_the_Volga#medi...
- crc32 12y ago
  This is a positive interpretation of the scenario that may well be valid. Perhaps the question of whether job satisfaction at Amazon has improved or not is a little subjective. I love your linked picture. I think that with it you imply that in the past, technological progress has been linked with higher standards of living for most. I'd agree with that, but I am wary of extrapolating that trend into the future; or maybe just concious that significant social turmoil came along with that progress. Perhaps the situation is not so different, but we are merely doomed to repeat the mistakes of the industrial revolution; during the robotics/knowledge revolution!

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

biot 12y ago

What he's avoiding saying is that while the need to hire more people isn't going away those human workers displaced by technology will, in all likelihood, be out of a job because there is now a higher-order job that they are unqualified to do. The savings from from automating the warehouse gets reinvested back into Kiva systems, for example. And it's not a 1:1 replacement either as it takes the elimination of a handful of minimum wage warehouse workers to let Amazon hire just one more engineer.

chii 12y ago
but that's the natural progression - if all you can do is move some packages from A to B, then you aren't worth very much, and when time comes that such jobs get automated, you _have_ to either skill up, or "die" off. Being able to make a good living isn't a right.

ddeck 12y ago

>I find this idea pretty interesting. That the amount of jobs stays the same even though robots do more and more of the stuff humans did in the past. So far it seems to hold true. This is only true so long as they are growing. That growth comes from either growth in the end market or by taking market share from competitors. I don't know the numbers, but I suspect a lot of Amazon's growth will be from taking market share due to lower costs because of those productivity gains. If this is the case, then those robots are still displacing jobs, just not at Amazon.

runeks 12y ago

> I find this idea pretty interesting. That the amount of jobs stays the same even though robots do more and more of the stuff humans did in the past. The point is that if the use of robots enables lowering the cost of online shopping, then more people can afford to shop online, and Amazon might even need to hire more people, to keep up with increased demand. It's the simple case of an innovation increasing productivity (less work hours per unit of product produced), which means they can lower prices, and -- possibly -- gain customers. If the increase in sales offsets the increase in productivity, then no workers need to be laid off. Of course, this isn't necessarily the case. An increase in productivity can lead to both layoffs, hiring and neither.