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

Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#51

Post by maym86 »

cromwellian wrote: post #37
beat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this argument. The problem usually isn't that robots are too expensive to do the human jobs, it's that robots can't do the human jobs, period. If something can be done by machine, it is done by machine, and that's been true since the beginning of the industrial era. Entire job classifications get wiped out by new automation, all the time. At this point, the jobs that are still done by humans are jobs that…

The Amazon of China, Jingdong, has a fulfillment center that handles hundreds of thousands of packages a day and employs just five people: https://youtu.be/RFV8IkY52iY Amazon used humans because the investment to build full automation was too expensive and take too long to build out compared to spinning up human labor. However now the logistics of the fulfillment center are well understood and they can be rebuilt wit…

That video looks like a demo/marketing video. Are there any videos of the factory working at full load?

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#52

Post by michaelt »

beat wrote: post #28
thoughtexplorer wrote: post #23

This sort of hand wringing seems like a distraction from the likelihood that Amazon has moved up the date* in which these jobs will be eliminated. Whether employees are netting out the same or not is going to be moot. If it's similar though then that really doesn't seem like a good deal longer term. *Robots will be able to do the jobs for $15 hour sooner than they'll be able to for $7 an hour. The math will accelerat…

I don't buy this argument. The problem usually isn't that robots are too expensive to do the human jobs, it's that robots can't do the human jobs, period. If something can be done by machine, it is done by machine, and that's been true since the beginning of the industrial era. Entire job classifications get wiped out by new automation, all the time. At this point, the jobs that are still done by humans are jobs that…

  If something can be done by machine, it is done by
  machine, and that's been true since the beginning
  of the industrial era.
Imagine an online retailer that employed 1000 people January-November, and 2000 people during December.

Automating the seasonal jobs would have a payback time 12x longer than automating the non-seasonal jobs. The December robots lock up capital during the 11 months of the year they're idle.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#53

Post by C1sc0cat »

kpwags wrote: post #3

I can understand some of the frustration, especially for those making just shy of $15 before the raise, but even if the raise is only from $14 to $15, that still is around $2,000/yr (assuming 40 hour work week) that is guaranteed the way a bonus generally isn't. I would almost always prefer a raise over a one-time bonus for that exact reason. In my experiences, I can't always count on my company giving me a yearly bo…

And for those few with a Defined benefit pension as a bonus is not pensionable.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#54

Post by ameister14 »

behringer wrote: post #17
abtinf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their claim is that everyone affected by this is getting a net raise. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

According to the article: "Those making, say, $14 an hour prior to the increase may only receive a $1 raise, which fails to make up for the loss of benefits."

I think the article misunderstood how the raise works. It's an increase in base pay plus existing multipliers. So if your base was 10 and you worked nights, for example, bringing you up to 15, your base will now be 15 and your multiplier brings your pay up to 22.5.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#55

Post by ameister14 »

maym86 wrote: post #47
thoughtexplorer wrote: post #23

This sort of hand wringing seems like a distraction from the likelihood that Amazon has moved up the date* in which these jobs will be eliminated. Whether employees are netting out the same or not is going to be moot. If it's similar though then that really doesn't seem like a good deal longer term. *Robots will be able to do the jobs for $15 hour sooner than they'll be able to for $7 an hour. The math will accelerat…

> Robots will be able to do the jobs for $15 hour sooner than they'll be able to for $7 an hour This doesn't make sense. Increasing workers wages doesn't change the rate a which automation technology becomes available. The bottle neck is the availablity of capable automation systems which is unrelated to workers wages. Even if there was a technology available that cost $15 an hour and worker wages were $7, increasing…

>Increasing workers wages doesn't change the rate a which automation technology becomes available.

Sure it does. If your current costs increase significantly, the math on funding research to automate the process changes. Not simply because you may fund research to fix your increase in cost, but also because there is now a more viable market for others to do the same.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#56

Post by p0rkbelly »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #20
behringer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article: "Those making, say, $14 an hour prior to the increase may only receive a $1 raise, which fails to make up for the loss of benefits."

And the Amazon statement in the article says "more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and future RSU grants." The conflict is probably due to the fact that RSU grants were very lucrative over the last few years. If you assume that the stock is going to quadruple in the next 3 years, then yes, a RSU bonus is probably better than a raise, but I don't think Amazon will be a 4 trillion dollar company in…

correct. For companies with heavy RSU based compensation they assume a certain % of growth every year. Say 10%. Let's say Amazon did 50% year over year. You did better than you expected. However, next year you will get less RSUs since you made a lot more than planned in the previous year.

Having a very good year, as I imagine most Amazon employees did, does not mean you should get the same windfall money next year. I'm sure that is not properly understood.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#57

Post by aetherson »

chadash wrote: post #10

In the past 5 years, Amazon's stock has gone up almost 6X. Anyone who got paid in RSUs almost certainly made out well. But, as Amazon points out in their statement, past results are no guarantee for stock performance going forward. I can pay you $500 in cash or I can give you $500 worth of stock (which vests over a period of time). Generally speaking, the cash (which you get right away) should always be valued more s…

They'll be comparing the instantaneous value of the stock with the value of the raise.

So if you previously got pay for the month of let's say $2,000 plus $400 in RSUs (the value of the RSUs at the moment they're assigned), then you might lose the RSUs but get paid $2,500 per month -- a $100/month raise.

If you then feel that Amazon stock is a good investment, you can buy $400 of Amazon stock on the public market, and you'll be where you were before, plus $100 in cash.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#58

Post by p0rkbelly »

dreamache wrote: post #43

"Bezos is no fool. He will reduce his headcount, and step up his automation effort to eliminate as many low-skilled jobs from Amazon. Then he will lobby Congress to increase the minimum wage for his competitors that still employ lower-skilled workers. As these competitors will lack the resources to automate, they will be driven out of business, and all their workers will lose their jobs. Less competition will make it…

I think for Schiff to be right, they would have to be ultimately raising their prices.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#59

Post by p0rkbelly »

ceejayoz wrote: post #22
swarnie_ wrote: post #16

I'm going to assume a lot of these warehouse workers would rather have more money in there pay packet now then a share or two which need years to vest with an unknown value.

That's true for shares, but NPR had interviews with Amazon warehouse workers that indicated the cash bonuses are monthly. One of the interviewees indicated his bonuses would sometimes equal his salary during busy periods like the holidays.

I wonder what % of the employees got bonuses though. are 95% of the employees better off, and the highest performers taking home less?

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#60

Post by ProAm »

p0rkbelly wrote: post #58
dreamache wrote: post #43

"Bezos is no fool. He will reduce his headcount, and step up his automation effort to eliminate as many low-skilled jobs from Amazon. Then he will lobby Congress to increase the minimum wage for his competitors that still employ lower-skilled workers. As these competitors will lack the resources to automate, they will be driven out of business, and all their workers will lose their jobs. Less competition will make it…

I think for Schiff to be right, they would have to be ultimately raising their prices.

They've been slowly doing that for years now
Post reply on HN