Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#961

Post by nopslides » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:24 PM UTC

alangibson wrote: post #764

leesec wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're down voted. People like to shame Amazon/Walmart for their wages and working conditions, but I guarantee they're doing a lot of the exact same things as other companies who are less criticized, Target, Meijer, etc.. Like he said, Amazon has it's issues but the employees were free to quit and work at other similar positions in similar companies.

> the employees were free to quit and work at other similar positions in similar companies If you think that's true, you've never been an under-educated person living in a small town.

I think many of the problems of the world come from lack of perspective. If you have never seen first hand how difficult it can be to live without education, how hard it can be to get education in the first place, how could you really understand. I guess it's easy to say the poor aren't working hard, or smart enough, but how can they be expected to do so when the tools to achieve have never been presented to them.

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#962

Post by jrochkind1 » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #858

jrochkind1 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a pretty big exception, even if the other part is true. (And thanks for acknowledging the exception up front!) At the high points, 20% of the total U.S. population were enslaved. At that point, it's not just an exception, it's a problem with the entire premise, even if the entire rest of the population was 'middle class', which they weren't. What allowed the U.S. economy to function with an unusually large porti…

That 20% was in the slave economy of the south. The north did not have slaves, and the middle class was in the north.

It's 20% of the population of the entire country. It was probably much more than 20% in the South, indeed (in some states as high as _65%_ enslaved people at some times!), and less in the North. The North did originally have some enslaved people.

The economies were clearly related.

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#963

Post by jrochkind1 » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #942

jrochkind1 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a pretty big exception, even if the other part is true. (And thanks for acknowledging the exception up front!) At the high points, 20% of the total U.S. population were enslaved. At that point, it's not just an exception, it's a problem with the entire premise, even if the entire rest of the population was 'middle class', which they weren't. What allowed the U.S. economy to function with an unusually large porti…

Not sure where your drawing your data from the US does have a large working class population and always has had. Up in the hollers you can still find some very poor working class people and its noticeable that the forces recruit from these populations (this is from conversations with USAF personnel)

So the original proposition was that "America has always been a nation of middle class people, even back in colonial times."

I'm not sure exactly what they meant. i'm not sure if "middle class people" and "working class people" are the same thing. I'm not sure if a "large working class population" contradicts "a nation of middle class people."

I interpreted the original claim as suggesting that the U.S. had _more_ "middle class people" than European nations, and had much much fewer people who were not "middle class people" compared to contemporaneous European (or other) nations. I am not sure how we define "middle class" or compare the U.S. and Europe "even in colonial times". I am sure that enslaved people were not "middle class" though.

But where I found my data that at some points ("colonial times " and shortly after) up to 20% of the entire U.S. population was enslaved people (who were obviously not "middle class" and to me present some serious problems with considering the U.S. at those times "a nation of middle-class people") by googling, and finding this: https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htm

The last line is total U.S. population. We can see that in 1750, 934,340 (white) + 236,420 (black) = 1,170,760. 236,420 / 1,170,760 == 20.1%. "colonial times". 1790, specifically breaking out free vs enslaved Black people now, also roughly 20% of the total population was enslaved people. The percentage starts to go down after that, by 1860 down to "only" 12%, which is still enough people who are clearly not middle class that I'm not sure I'd want to call it a "nation of middle-class people".

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#964

Post by criddell » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:42 PM UTC

philliphaydon wrote: post #956

criddell wrote: post #953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulate or break up the monopoly if they abuse their monopoly power.

The monopoly exists because competition cannot begin because of minimum wage, so how is that an abuse of power? You couldn't argue that in court to regulate it.

Being a monopoly isn't the problem. It's when monopoly power is abused that the government steps in.

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#965

Post by johnqpub » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:48 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #492

johnqpub wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply 100% false. What do you think the 500,000 employees of Amazon are doing if not working in a warehouse? They're not programming.

The press lumps Integrity's headcount as "Amazon". It is to Amazon's benefit that this falsehood goes unnoticed.

Go look at the last quarterly filing.

https://ir.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-detail...

Employees (full-time and part-time; excludes contractors & temporary personnel): 575,700

As dang said, if you're going to make a big claim, at least attempt to be right.

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#966

Post by philwelch » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 3:55 PM UTC

jrochkind1 wrote: post #800

WalterBright wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has always been a nation of middle class people, even back in colonial times. The exception was the southern slave economy, which didn't have much of a middle class.

it's a pretty big exception, even if the other part is true. (And thanks for acknowledging the exception up front!) At the high points, 20% of the total U.S. population were enslaved. At that point, it's not just an exception, it's a problem with the entire premise, even if the entire rest of the population was 'middle class', which they weren't. What allowed the U.S. economy to function with an unusually large porti…

Talking about a "US economy" in the antebellum years is like talking about a "European economy" today. There were vast economic and social differences between North and South because they followed fundamentally different economic models.

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#967

Post by philliphaydon » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #964

philliphaydon wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monopoly exists because competition cannot begin because of minimum wage, so how is that an abuse of power? You couldn't argue that in court to regulate it.

Being a monopoly isn't the problem. It's when monopoly power is abused that the government steps in.

So my original question was. Once the competition is gone... what happens? This a government regulation problem not a monopoly problem.

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#968

Post by ars » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

csdreamer7 wrote: post #936

ars wrote: post #889

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would still support Bernie's bill. Wasn't that the bill the encouraged employers to only hire people without dependents, because more dependents = more benefits, which the bill does not adjust for at all? Why would anyone support that bill?

> Wasn't that the bill the encouraged employers to only hire people without dependents, because more dependents = more benefits, which the bill does not adjust for at all? Employers already have incentive to not hire people with dependents. The media criticizes tech companies for having a young male workforce all the time for this. They feel hungry young men without social attachment will work harder and longer for t…

So since they already have incentive to not hire people with dependents you ... want to make it worse??

Am I missing something?

> If an employer feels incentive to discriminate in favor of those without dependents because of this law, they likely already were.

Except now the inventive is MUCH greater. Before it was some nebulous "they'll work harder", but with this bill it's cold hard cash, and potentially a lot of it.

> Also this bill only applied to large employers, those with severe market power over labor and markets that really can afford to pay more

That doesn't make it better, that makes it worse. That means that the largest portion of the labor force is now closed to people with a lot of kids.

> and are in the best position to exploit welfare benefits.

Meaning they are able to lobby lawmakers to reduce benefits, so that their taxes from this bill go down?

I have a feeling you don't understand just how bad this bill is.

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#969

Post by garettmd » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 5:35 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #583

garettmd wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "constantly moving the goal posts" the name of the game in capitalism? Good on Amazon for increasing their minimum wage, but why shouldn't it also be met with a healthy amount of skepticism. Companies definitely do things for the common good (I don't see much competitive advantage gained from going 100% renewable energy - a common move for many tech companies - apart from maybe attracting better/more employees)…

I mean, do you want good behavior to be rewarded or not? If good behavior isn't rewarded, how do you think companies might act in the future. People, as well as companies, respond to incentives.

I agree with you. And I think it's good that Amazon is given credit for doing this. But I also question whether the incentive that pushed Amazon to do this has as much to do with magnanimity as it does with generating goodwill and preventing tougher legislation. Bernie Sanders and his group have been calling on Amazon to improve worker conditions and pay, and while they have praised Amazon for doing so, I think they would be naïve to think there's not more to expect or demand of Amazon in this realm. That is in effect "rewarding" them for good behavior, but there should also be some negative incentives in place (IMHO) to further encourage more of this good behavior

Re: Amazon raises minimum wage to $15 for all US employees

#970

Post by manigandham » Wed, Oct 03, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

As usual, nothing is ever that simple.

This is a direct assault on Walmart by getting the government to raise wages, which are not viable for retail heavy jobs that cannot be automated or streamlined like warehouses.

It's good PR in the face of their recent news, and will definitely help people in the short-term, but it's also a very shrewd business move and may lead to externalities that cause more damage in the long-term.