Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#91

Post by scarface74 »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #61
vorpalhex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about $30k a year. That's comfortable in areas within an hour or two of my town. I made that amount when I was in college, in the DC area, and most certainly survived just fine. Had I lived more rural in an area where entry level homes are And the banjo-playing is mostly a joke, especially in Texas. That being said, as an avid hiker, I spend a significant chunk of my time in places best labeled as "Nowhere, re…

>when I was in college Show me one person in this country with two kids who makes $14/hr and doesn't feel like they're struggling. College is easy, I survived on >Had I lived more rural in an area where entry level homes are It would've gone a bit further but certainly not 'much.' >That being said, as an avid hiker, I spend a significant chunk of my time in places best labeled as "Nowhere, really". Somehow I think ev…

why are you assuming that there is only one income?

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#92

Post by colek42 »

smt88 wrote: post #52
colek42 wrote: post #39

There is this false assumption that people are paid what they are worth. People are paid what the market will bear. $28k is about 13/hour. For places like East TN this is not a horrible wage, and you can live on it. As a comparison, an entry-level position in the military, E1, makes less even when you account for allowances.

> There is this false assumption that people are paid what they are worth. Who thinks this? I don't know any adult who is that naive. > People are paid what the market will bear. In many industries, the employer side of the market is vastly more powerful than the employee. The employer can just pass on an employee asking for too much money; an employee may be facing weeks without a job, which is difficult for most pe…

> That's true if the government is protecting the employee with a safety net, like welfare and ACA, and laws, like COBRA. A better-paid employee could save more money and provide their own safety net, as many high earners do with rainy-day accounts, investments, passive income, etc.

I personally would advocate taking away the safety net for able individuals and instituting a basic income. I think I would solve some of the market issues we are seeing with low wages. This will become more prevalent as automating gets cheaper.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#93

Post by krapp »

scarface74 wrote: post #87
SolarNet wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except raising the minimum wage is often met with cries that it will stifle business and prevent competition. The problem is fundamentally that labor markets can't be free markets, and the minimum wage is not a viable way to control the market distortions. The better solution is to use a basic income which allows people to not work for companies like Amazon until they can pay a better wage.

Amazon already owns Kiva. If you make the minimum wage high enough, it just gives them more incentive to automate.

It's impossible to give Amazon more incentive to automate, since they already intend to automate everything as soon as it's feasible. Raising minimum wage or even wages in general for warehouse workers wouldn't accelerate that schedule, since the obstacles to automation are primarily technical.

Kivas are nice and all, but they can't pick and they definitely can't stow. They could probably move pallets, but couldn't palletize, and having them run around the facilities at the necessary speed dragging a train of pallets would be a safety hazard.

They are really good at reading QR codes and turning at 90 degree angles, though.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#94

Post by elicash »

pg_bot wrote: post #68

The headline falls into what I would characterize as a "useless fact". The number is meant to manipulate you into clicking the article based on the belief that Amazon is unfairly compensating its employees. While I'm not an advocate for Amazon's work practices, this article provides no further analysis than a copy pasted line from a financial report. We need more context and analysis if you actually want to understan…

> The number is meant to manipulate you into clicking the article based on the belief that Amazon is unfairly compensating its employees.

How is it manipulative to report on median pay for a company? This is as straightforwardly reported as possible, and not at all click-baity or manipulative. We shouldn't be afraid of basic facts that actually capture important information in an objective way. It's not a misleading number, it provides real insights into Amazon.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#95

Post by colek42 »

elicash wrote: post #88
colek42 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the pay is fair for the military. It is an entry-level job. I used it as an example since it is how I spent the first 10 years or so of my adulthood. Becuase I got paid crap and had horrible working conditions it gave me the motivation I needed to learn how to program computers. Now I am a highly paid SWE. If I was making 100k a year enlisted I would have never had the motivation to do what I am doing now.

To be clear, you're now arguing pay at Amazon is "crap" but that it's good because it gives people motivation to change careers. Glad we could clarify that.

To be clear, I said my pay was crap when doing a comparison to my pay as an SWE. It was crap, but fair considering my skill set.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#96

Post by rtkwe »

scarface74 wrote: post #87
SolarNet wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except raising the minimum wage is often met with cries that it will stifle business and prevent competition. The problem is fundamentally that labor markets can't be free markets, and the minimum wage is not a viable way to control the market distortions. The better solution is to use a basic income which allows people to not work for companies like Amazon until they can pay a better wage.

Amazon already owns Kiva. If you make the minimum wage high enough, it just gives them more incentive to automate.

They've already automated the easy parts in a lot of their warehouses. They've gone from runners to using the Kiva bots to bring the items to the packagers. Automating picking and boxing from there will be really hard.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#97

Post by austincheney »

baby wrote: post #75
austincheney wrote: post #22

Before people comment too much about wage inequality consider for a moment that this ins't a feudal state where people are locked into role and wage limits outside their control. I am a software developer for one of the larger companies and also an Army Reservist. When I go away to do Army stuff I frequently encounter people who work much harder and earn much less than I do in their civilian jobs. Is that fair? I wou…

Does it mean these people should “survive” on such a salary? Is that what you are saying?

In short, yes. If a person does not like that amount of money, which is well below a skilled profession, then they should feel sufficiently motivated to devote time to developing a skill. I know that may sound cold, but it is just a reflection of basic economics.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#98

Post by ddingus »

elicash wrote: post #94
pg_bot wrote: post #68

The headline falls into what I would characterize as a "useless fact". The number is meant to manipulate you into clicking the article based on the belief that Amazon is unfairly compensating its employees. While I'm not an advocate for Amazon's work practices, this article provides no further analysis than a copy pasted line from a financial report. We need more context and analysis if you actually want to understan…

> The number is meant to manipulate you into clicking the article based on the belief that Amazon is unfairly compensating its employees. How is it manipulative to report on median pay for a company? This is as straightforwardly reported as possible, and not at all click-baity or manipulative. We shouldn't be afraid of basic facts that actually capture important information in an objective way. It's not a misleading…

Right.

Amazon, right along with other big players are not paying people well enough to make it.

Increasing numbers of them don't, and that costs all of us while eroding demand needed for the economy to grow and perform for all of us.

In a very real sense, failure to fund a better, more equitable, just standard of living means it won't exist at all.

Flat out, it is unacceptable to make billions while a majority are on public assistance.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#99

Post by colek42 »

gowld wrote: post #44
colek42 wrote: post #39

There is this false assumption that people are paid what they are worth. People are paid what the market will bear. $28k is about 13/hour. For places like East TN this is not a horrible wage, and you can live on it. As a comparison, an entry-level position in the military, E1, makes less even when you account for allowances.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/enlisted-paygrades-and-ran... says E1-E3 are for basic training and first assignment, and E4 is $25k/yr. Plus I suppose (not sure) that military has much better health insurance (and other benefits, like food and maybe housing?) than Amazon warehouse employees

You will usually not make E4 until you hit your 3 year mark. The reg says you must have two years time in service. There are plenty of privates walking around Afghanistan right now.

Re: Amazon worker’s median pay in 2017: $28,446

#100

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

megaman22 wrote: post #86
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when I was in college Show me one person in this country with two kids who makes $14/hr and doesn't feel like they're struggling. College is easy, I survived on >Had I lived more rural in an area where entry level homes are It would've gone a bit further but certainly not 'much.' >That being said, as an avid hiker, I spend a significant chunk of my time in places best labeled as "Nowhere, really". Somehow I think ev…

I know a lot of people back home, in rural Maine, who have a two-income household where each makes $15/hour, and they get by alright with a house and a couple of kids. Of course, a decent house in that area runs $80-100k, whereas the same house in the area I live outside of Boston would cost $400k, and you couldn't buy a property with an equivalent amount of land attached at any price in the Bay area.

Yeah but that's my point. They each make $15/hr and they're 'alright.' A few of the other commenters who have chimed in here also match what my experience has been, mainly that $15/hr in rural areas isn't bad but it's not really good either. It allows you to get into the bottom end of the middle class but that's about it. It's certainly not 'kingly' and usually doesn't provide the sort of safety net people need to really feel comfortable either.
Post reply on HN