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

When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#141

Post by asr »

chongli wrote: post #85
xg15 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wanna increase salaries and stock grants? Sure, do it. Two quarters later Wall Street will fuck you up because your new shiny compensation model just shaved the company revenue. ... So that 5% of lost revenue is going to cost you 20% or 30% of market value, and now all those stock grants are 30% less valuable. So your great initiative just put you in a negative spiral. This basically, is what people mean when they…

businesses don't seem to have a choice Sure they do. There are plenty of smart, prudent retirement plans for companies to offer to their employees that don't involve crippling liabilities down the road. Defined contribution pensions, tax free retirement accounts, dollar-for-dollar matching (up to a limit) etc. Defined benefit pensions were a bad idea born of a "I'll be retired before then so let's kick the can down t…

Defined benefit plans have large drawbacks (risk to the firm, risk to retirees if the plan fails, etc.), but there is zero evidence they were born of a desire to kick the can down the road. They simply came first (at the time, as far as I'm aware, nobody had even thought of a defined contribution plan, and there would have been no tax reason to have one instead of just paying workers).[0]

Let's debate what works without pretending everyone who disagrees with us has terrible motives. Defined benefit plans provided huge benefits to many workers who have not managed the switch to defined contribution plans well.[1] That does not mean that pensions are sustainable, or even that they are a good idea, but their proponents are not just con-men.

[0] https://www.thebalance.com/the-history-of-the-pension-plan-2...

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/20/l-it-the-401k-is-a-failure.h...

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#142

Post by simonebrunozzi »

whoisjuan wrote: post #14

Sears' huge pension liabilities was cited as one of the main reasons that prevented any possible re-structuring that could have saved the company when it was declining and heading to bankruptcy... I mean, let's be realistic here. For how long was Sears in this pitiful state?... Getting all that real estate + semi-established brand was a private equity's wet dream, yet nobody ever contemplated that option. And now tha…

Important note: at Sears, different departments fought against each other for years - essentially a dozen of small businesses with the overhead of a large corporation. No way it could have ended well.

That's the main reason why Sears went this way.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#143

Post by scottlocklin »

arentiright wrote: post #24

Why does NYT have it out for Amazon? Is it because Mr Bezos owns a rival paper?

Dunno; maybe because its fronted by the world's richest man, treats its workers badly, and has a bunch of sweet deals with the CIA? Or maybe it's because Bezos owns a rival paper.

I think the Times is awful, venal, half tabloid, and generally doesn't go after the powerful enough, but I don't think they look at WaPo as 'rivals.' They're basically the same thing, owned by a different set of oligarchs.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#144

Post by InitialLastName »

huffmsa wrote: post #99

Everyone seems to only focus on the blue collar staff at Amazon. They're enot Amazon's main employees, developers are. The warehouse staff will be mostly replaced by machines in the next 5-10 years.

> They're enot Amazon's main employees, developers are.

According to [0] (page 30), Amazon's median compensation was $28,446. Where's your justification that either "main employees" are way less than half of Amazon's total employees or $30K/year is a normal developer salary.

[0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312518...

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#145

Post by _cs2017_ »

anticensor wrote: post #114
_cs2017_ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, every American who makes less money than they deserve, has two choices: (1) Find a way to make more money. (2) Appeal to the sense of fairness to get sympathy from the community. Sadly, according to US federal law (4 U.S.C. §§ 888), anyone who earned a total compensation in excess of 7 times national average individual median income, loses the right to option (2). Any attempt to exercise it will result in…

In the US, one earning more than 7 times national average income cannot accept gifts at all? Have I read right? "4 USC 888" does not exist.

I didn't say anything about gifts, sorry for any confusion. Please feel free to send gifts!

By the way, I also happily accept gifts myself :)

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#146

Post by CydeWeys »

dantheman wrote: post #127
CydeWeys wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even just direct contributions to retirement plans for all employees, no matching required. E.g. a company contributing $500 per month into the employee's 401k. My last company did something similar, but it was tied to salary and it was annual (prorated). I think a better case can be made for doing it monthly, so you don't need to bother with prorating, and also to do constant amounts for all employees rather than…

I like the plans where the first 7% is granted, and the last 3% is a match -- it helps everyone, and encourages personal contributions.

Definitely sounds better than most plans. Also what's been proven to be incredibly effective, and what many companies are doing now, is to make retirement contributions opt-out rather than opt-in. I forget the exact stats but it was something like 30% contribute to a plan if it's opt-in, but 80% do if it's opt-out. It's a huge difference.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#147

Post by forapurpose »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #60
forapurpose wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I blame the media Amazon isn't responsible for its own decisions?

To some extent, maybe. But then again, if you poke a bear with a stick and it mauls you, nobody will blame the bear. If we expect responsibility for decisions to companies, then it's only fair if media outlets too are held responsible for the consequences of misapplying public pressure.

> if you poke a bear with a stick and it mauls you, nobody will blame the bear

I think that analogy goes against your argument: The bear is a wild animal unable to make rational decisions. Amazon is an extremely powerful company lead by some of the leading businesspeople in the world. The difference between Amazon and the bear is exactly why Amazon is solely responsible for its decisions.

> misapplying

That'a s matter of opinion; IMHO, it was and is not at all misapplied.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#148

Post by anticensor »

_cs2017_ wrote: post #145
anticensor wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, one earning more than 7 times national average income cannot accept gifts at all? Have I read right? "4 USC 888" does not exist.

I didn't say anything about gifts, sorry for any confusion. Please feel free to send gifts! By the way, I also happily accept gifts myself :)

I refuse all kinds of gifts, except for information and knowledge material, from anyone except my immediate family. I also do not gift anyone who may have a business or personal relationship with me now or any time in the future.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#149

Post by patrickg_zill »

CydeWeys wrote: post #76
patrickg_zill wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious about how many hours you would say you work each week? Or how many total hours per year? A normal 40 hours per week is usually seen as about 2000 hours per year.

The exact definition of a full time salaried position, as defined by the federal government, is 2087 hours per year, FYI. Why such a weird number? Because it takes leap years into account: 365.24 × 5/7 × 8

True, but there are about 10 typical holidays that fall on weekdays each year. So 50 weeks * 40 hours is close enough.
Post reply on HN