Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#301

Post by mav3rick » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

pergadad wrote: post #275

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I complain about wealth inequality more than anyone I know. Stock buybacks had A LOT of problems people don't discuss. But this isn't really what ruined the airlines. UAL -- the hardest hit and worst buyback offender -- bought back $1.2Bn in 2015, $2Bn in 2016, $3Bn in 2017, $1.2Bn in 2018, and $3Bn in 2019. That's a total of $10.4Bn. To my knowledge, less than 4% of that was on borrowed money. They returned ro…

It's not the that ruined them, but we see another classic transfer from the state (=people) to the wealthy. The correct thing would be to nationalise them if they go bankrupt, not to bail out the investors that earned money with the explicit expectation of risk. And I say that having lost 10k in stock value in the past month. Still my fault and my risk and I don't deserve to be bailed out for it.

Every time things are nationalized, people eventually clamor for privatization. Govts can rarely run corporations.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#302

Post by Normal_gaussian » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 11:29 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #284

_pmf_ wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With any job that requires urinating into bottles to keep low tier managers' KPIs good, I somewhat doubt the attribute "much needed".

There are a shitload of jobs that are (as coronavirus crisis and the list of jobs deemed essential in many countries shows) "much needed" for keeping a country running: anything medical, public transport, childcare/education, logistics, groceries/other food, infrastructure upkeep (electric/water/phone/internet/gas grid). But unlike jobs that label themselves "system critical" such as banks, investment vulture funds a…

What is more "essential", the job doing the essential work or the job creating the conditions that makes others do the essential work?

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#303

Post by mschuster91 » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 11:54 AM UTC

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #302

mschuster91 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a shitload of jobs that are (as coronavirus crisis and the list of jobs deemed essential in many countries shows) "much needed" for keeping a country running: anything medical, public transport, childcare/education, logistics, groceries/other food, infrastructure upkeep (electric/water/phone/internet/gas grid). But unlike jobs that label themselves "system critical" such as banks, investment vulture funds a…

What is more "essential", the job doing the essential work or the job creating the conditions that makes others do the essential work?

The essential jobs are those without which society would collapse and lives be in actual danger, as well as the dependencies of these jobs.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#304

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 12:27 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #246

lmm wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That tax incentive was set up deliberately. It's socially valuable for people to have retirement savings, so the rest of us are happy to subsidise you in that saving. Buybacks are an accident of tax law and ought to be taxed the same way as dividends.

> Buybacks are an accident of tax law and ought to be taxed the same way as dividends. The problem is it's really the other way around -- reinvested dividends should be taxed like buybacks, i.e. taxed when the purchased shares are sold. By contrast, taxing buybacks like current dividends would create a really grisly incentive for corporations to hoard a giant pile of money, since that would be the remaining way to de…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#305

Post by wdb » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 12:37 PM UTC

tedmiston wrote: post #15

crazygringo wrote: post #12

I mean, here in Brooklyn you literally cannot order AmazonFresh. No delivery slots no matter how far in the future you scroll. And it's been this way for at least a couple of days now. So makes sense.

Are your options also today, tomorrow, day after; or can you see beyond that?

No deliveries in London with Tesco util like 6th of April and the stores quite empty too. I am running out of food :(

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#306

Post by supdatecron » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 12:41 PM UTC

mxcrossb wrote: post #273

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I complain about wealth inequality more than anyone I know. Stock buybacks had A LOT of problems people don't discuss. But this isn't really what ruined the airlines. UAL -- the hardest hit and worst buyback offender -- bought back $1.2Bn in 2015, $2Bn in 2016, $3Bn in 2017, $1.2Bn in 2018, and $3Bn in 2019. That's a total of $10.4Bn. To my knowledge, less than 4% of that was on borrowed money. They returned ro…

I also think it’s ridiculous for people to want these companies to store up money for a rainy day, while at the same time keeping interest rates incredibly low.

How so? How are these two concepts related?

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#307

Post by __s » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 12:59 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #285

cletus wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is, delivery drivers elsewhere actually do this by choice. UPS and FedEx drivers are paid for a set of deliveries. If they can do them quicker then they get the same money but for less time. In NYC finding a restroom can be a real pain and a waste of precious time. It’s far easier to urinate in a bottle on the truck and keep moving. I imagine they eat while on the move too. So I’m not quite sure this is the ind…

> So I’m not quite sure this is the indignity you make it or to be. It is. Eating during driving is dangerous, even more so with a multi ton delivery truck. Pissing in a bottle is disgusting and a public health risk (where to properly wash hands, for one). If delivery set prices do not cover that employees get enough time to decently work, then they have to be raised!

Their argument is that some employees will piss in bottles no matter what you pay them. Don't fall into the trap of arguing that they'd stop pissing in bottles at 100/hr

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#308

Post by op00to » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 1:03 PM UTC

claudeganon wrote: post #34

allovernow wrote: post #24

Do we know yet what the probability of packaging borne transmission is? Has anyone seen anything? I saw one study describing virus lifetime on various surfaces but I don't think they tested cardboard. Also I don't know what they're expecting. They either have mountains of stock or they'll be laying these people back off soon when factories close. I think supplies out of China are still disrupted.

It’s still awaiting peer review, but initial research suggest 24 hours of stability on cardboard, 2-3 days on plastic and metals: https://www.wired.com/story/how-long-does-the-coronavirus-la... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v...

I'm curious to see if packages and deliveries were seen as transmission vectors in any other infectious epidemics. If packages were a reliable transmission vector, you'd expect to see much higher infection rate of truckers, postal workers, shop clerks, etc. I haven't found evidence of this.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#309

Post by leetcrew » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

fiblye wrote: post #79

WalterBright wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We must have a rent holiday if those businesses and their workers are to survive. We'll get a lot of rent forgiveness naturally. If a strip mall has some tenants who cannot make rent in this crisis, who are they going to get who can pay? The pragmatic approach is to keep your existing tenants, because their survival is your strip mall's survival.

We might get a lot, but it likely won’t be enough. Many land owners would already prefer to leave their buildings empty for years over even considering negotiating on rent. I doubt anything can change their minds.

they prefer to leave the building empty in anticipation of a higher priced long-term lease in the future. if you're already renting space to a profitable business that was stable before the crisis, the incentives are probably to work out an arrangement with the business that helps it not go under. now if you're already unsatisfied with the current tenant, you might see now as a good opportunity to kick them out and wait for someone willing to pay a higher price.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#310

Post by leetcrew » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #183

social_quotient wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s odd but really true. Does anyone have insight why this is the case?

At an aggregate level it can make more sense to leave X% of units vacant than to lower prices (which could have effects on the rate you can charge with the rest of your units). I think it’s an example of our financial system not working as intended. For example let’s say I have a 100 unit apartment building. If I maintain a 20% vacancy rate target I can charge an average of $1000/mo/unit. But to set a price at which…

why wouldn't you just price discriminate through short-term concessions to fill the remaining 20% and increase revenue? this seems to be what most apartment buildings around me actually do.