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

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#321

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

_pmf_ wrote: post #268

BurningFrog wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And much needed jobs. So evil!

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

Like all jobs, these jobs are voluntary. Workers can quit any day they want.

Since they keep showing up, they clearly think these jobs are their best option at the moment.

Here's my point: I strongly believe that you or I have neither the information or the right to judge that choice or take it away from them.

The piss in a bottle stories are just that. Amazon and Bezos have much attention and many enemies. Stories about how awful they are will always appear and circulate.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#322

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 4:55 PM 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…

Lost interest when you claimed medical jobs have extremely shitty pay.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#323

Post by Amygaz » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #253

Amygaz wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should help alleviating the symptoms, but is in no way a antiviral. There's a phase 3 trial for treating pneumonia associated with coronavirus. This is based on prior work showing anti-inflammatory response in rheumatoid arthritis ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8278823 ). Note that the trial is happening in China ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04261517 ), where the barriers of entry and approval a…

> After randomization, subjects take hydroxychloroquine 400mg per day for 5 days, also take conventional treatments. Huh. I'm on 200mg/day for rheumatoid arthritis. I wonder if I ought to double dose for a while.

Sorry for the late reply: I don't see how it would prevent infection. It could be useful post-infection, to prevent complications and inflammation. Compared that with the standard of care right now which is simply observing the patient during their recovering.

There are a fair amount of studies who took the initial in vitro results (i.e. cell culture) suggesting non-specific antiviral activity (at that level coca-cola is also an antiviral, antimicrobial, and antitumoral, by the way), into animal or human, and they just did not pan out, because it isn't an antiviral.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#324

Post by mrscottson » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #243

majormajor wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand who buybacks are better for. A dividend would've returned money to all the people who held onto shares and wasn't paying attention to how much they should be selling off to capture the buyback and just had all the gains wiped out...

In the absence of taxes, a buyback is equivilent to a dividend with automatic reinvestment. It's better as a shareholder in many cases to be able to control when you recognize the gain from the return to investors.

Hilarious but probably time to leave this site...I got down voted into oblivion for pointing out the US economy would probably collapse due to repo operations 44 days ago...

Too bad, I guess anyone thinking outside the box and pointing out that our herd is going off a cliff is problematic...

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#325

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #295

AQuantized wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with that in of itself, but if it stomps out any potential competition and renders them unable to compete after a certain degree of monopolization, what sort of position will consumers eventually be placed in?

> what sort of position will consumers eventually be placed in? In a pretty shitty one. That is the ultimate goal of modern cut-throat capitalism: get utter market domination, destroy all competition and once that is done, raise the prices as far as possible without attracting too much protest from the few regulatory institutions that remain.

> That is the ultimate goal of modern cut-throat capitalism

True, but the only way they can achieve that is by using the government to outlaw competition and/or regulate them out of existence.

Their attempts to do it result in prosperity, high standards of living, longevity, etc.

(it has nothing to do with being "modern")

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#326

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #237

majormajor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need taxes on vacancies. Encourage people to let property go to people who can put it to some use. Prevent blight and crime, etc, too.

Put a land value tax in place, and then the incentive to hold property for speculation goes away, in favour of selling it to people who can use it productively.

> Put a land value tax in place

We already have that. I pay huge property taxes every year and so does everyone else who owns land.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#327

Post by jimmydorry » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

mav3rick wrote: post #300

sudhirj wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to rewind. Rewind implies changing something in your own past, but nobody's past changed. Only the futures of different timelines, if that makes sense.

A good way to think of this is a git checkout from anywhere . And then all future commits happen in a branch / detached head state, not affecting the place you checked out from i.e. original timeline.

They made a big deal out of it in the movie, that the stones had to be returned to the exact time they were taken from, or else they would be changing the future of the old "head".

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#328

Post by missedthecue » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #147

_jal wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting them all fail would do more harm to others than warranted. But letting the weakest one fail as a warning to the others that the bailouts are over and perhaps they should learn to save against rainy days isn't the worst idea.

Letting them all fail would do more harm to others than warranted. "Too big to fail?" We fell for that once before.

...and it was true then

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#329

Post by toast0 » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

mrscottson wrote: post #324

toast0 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of taxes, a buyback is equivilent to a dividend with automatic reinvestment. It's better as a shareholder in many cases to be able to control when you recognize the gain from the return to investors.

Hilarious but probably time to leave this site...I got down voted into oblivion for pointing out the US economy would probably collapse due to repo operations 44 days ago... Too bad, I guess anyone thinking outside the box and pointing out that our herd is going off a cliff is problematic...

The economy may be very well on its way to collapse, but I don't think it's because of the repo operations.

Re: Amazon to hire 100k warehouse and delivery workers

#330

Post by opportune » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #310

opportune wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is what people do sometimes (esp. in SF where you'll get "2 months free rent"). But I think in commercial real estate the math is a bit different because leases tend to be longer - so you really don't want to budge on the actual monthly rate and even 1-2 months free doesn't end up helping the prospective tenant that much