Live data from Hacker News

Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

nytimes.com

761–770 of 785 posts

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#761
post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> loophole created for the express purpose This is an oxymoron.

While perhaps technically true, I think you are taking a word's general strict meaning, and are attempting to apply it to something where the meaning is often stretched a bit liberally. While yes, it is true that a "loophole" is something that is unintended but allows some subset of people to benefit, when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets…

> when it comes to "tax loophole", that has colloquially come to mean "any means by which a special interest group gets to avoid taxes". "Tax loopholes" can be intentionally added to the tax code, even if "loophole" implies something unintentional.

You're wrong. You just have been using the term wrong and listening to people who do as well. Loopholes are unintentional. The things you are referring to are intentionally placed in the tax code for people to take advantage of.

Do you consider the solar credit a tax loophole for people with solar?

>Remember that English is a living language, and meanings change to suit how people use words, not how the dictionary may have once defined them.

Great but this doesn't apply to "loophole". You're just wrong and doubling down.

>tax loophole

>A provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes. The term has the connotation of an unintentional omission or obscurity in the law that allows the reduction of tax liability to a point below that intended by the framers of the law.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#762
post #750
post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Yes there is such a thing as a conservative or liberal oe whatever. And then there are people who are not conservatives and still hold some socially or economically conservative view. It is hard to know whether you are trolling or genuinely ignored politics and culture from wherever you got born.

How do you define a conservative if not for the views they hold? So again, is Obama a conservative? If you say no, then how many conservative views must one hold to belong to the group?

So, you are trolling then. I answered these in upper comments.

> If you say no, then how many conservative views must one hold to belong to the group?

When you proclaim proudly "I am conservative" and share 70% of conservative opinions or more. Or, when you talk about liberal snowflakes. Same thing, really.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the snark? I'm asking you why if you're opposed to mandatory contribution of union dues by employees, you're not similarly opposed to mandatory contribution to shareholder profits by employees. It's a 100% genuine question.

Your point is actually very interesting to me. I've never heard that before. I get it- maybe I "don't wanna" contribute to x, y, or z. What right do I have to do about those things? That "takes away my agency and freedom", right? I found your point insightful. Because you can't really have it one way, and not the other. Just cherry-picking what you find offensive in an employment agreement. If there is a union involv…

Thanks, I’m glad somebody has grasped the point I’m making - which is that the whole system is built around coercion, so singling out one arbitrary part of it as involuntary is completely inconsistent and ideological.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that the higher oil goes, the more incentive there is for clean energy. Here's a guy who actually formed a company based on that premise. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/02/03/terraform-indu...

> I would think that the higher oil goes, the more incentive there is for clean energy. Sure? Yet that misses my point entirely. We all want clean energy. We all want electric cars. Even those who say they don't eventually will. How do we get there? We need to double our power generation capacity and seriously upgrade the grid, our ability to deliver power, in order to support this desirable future. Just for a sense…

So you didn't take a look at the link? The scarcity of oil is built into Handmer's business model. I'm not sold on it myself, but the guy is clearly quite bright and willing to quit his job in software to try it out.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#765
post #31
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a union rep when working in Norway, I guess it was open-shop since we had two different unions. In practice we cooperated a lot, and the largest benefit was the it gave us access to lawyers that could answer questions quickly so the members were more willing to push back on unreasonable requests. We were never close to going to a lawsuit against the company, it was more "hey this is breaking the law, how do we…

> We were never close to going to a lawsuit against the company, it was more "hey this is breaking the law, how do we work together to fix it". Yeah, but the article is about the US, were they invented the Pinkertons instead of addressing employee grievances :-)

There were pretty bad anti-union activity back in the day in Norway as well. The army was used to squash strikes.

These days not so much. I think part of the reason Norway works is that it has gotten past the insane hostility and there is not the all or nothing mentality. For example there is free healthcare, but there is also private insurance and hospitals if you want better care from a private provider. I think for a capitalistic society (and I don't think we have a better way yet), being able to have options is a must.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bad salespeople More like the business culture is in serious need of recalibration. At the same time, some of it is easy to understand. Manufacturing is hard, for most, unimaginably hard. The sad reality in the US is that, because of costs and the layers of bullshit you have to deal with, the easiest way to survive is to focus on high dollar/high margin markets. That means that if you can land jobs in aerospace or…

We are talking from very different perspectives - not just extremely different life experiences from every possible point of view, but also thinking of different kinds of companies. I'm sure many of your arguments do apply to small-to-medium companies in manufacturing-like companies. But if you're thinking a company like Facebook or Disney or Electronic Arts or Bank of America operates on a fear of going bankrupt, yo…

Much, if not all, of what you say in this post is absolutely true. The difference, in my view, and what tends to make me react negatively, is making a blanket statement that all business is driven by profit. The picture you paint in this comment if far more balanced that that because you cover specific types of businesses and make distinctions. I think you understand that, just like people are different, businesses are different.

Many decades ago I bought a surface mount assembly line (equipment) from this guy who made a living selling high quality electronics manufacturing equipment. He had just downsized from an operation with 50 employees an a huge warehouse to buying a house and smaller warehouse in the mountains (Big Bear, if you happen to know SoCal) and was very happy. His goal was to sell one or two systems per quarter and that was enough. He, at some point, decided a lifestyle business was what he needed at that stage in life. He told me that at that scale the focus on making enough profit to keep the organization going was so stressful that, after a couple of decades of that he had to simplify his life. So, yes, 50 people lost their jobs because he decided he was done focusing on profit at that scale and wanted to simplify his life.

I was a young entrepreneur and he was much older, so I guess he felt compelled to give me advice. One of the things he said that stuck in my head was "A business is like a living breathing organism with a mind of its own. You think you are in control. You are not. It tells you what you are going to do each and every day when you come to work. You can point in a general direction, but it is in control."

He went on to explain that, at nearly every scale, a focus on profit is necessary in order to achieve growth, maintain it, remain competitive and, at some point, keep everyone employed. I have personally experienced this to be true in the decades that followed that conversation.

From the outside it might seem like all someone focuses on is profits. What few people do is engage in a root cause analysis process in order to understand why --objectively-- someone might have to do this.

A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend of mine who works for a manufacturing company in Arizona. In this conversation he made a comment about how annoying it was that the COO was always pounding the table to save costs on all items and designs all the time. He thought the guy was somewhere between insane and just plain greedy to make his bonus on the backs of everyone else.

I said, OK, this will be fun. It's a small company (about 20 people) in a well defined market. Let's analyze it.

We got on a zoom call, I fired-up Excel and we developed a quick financial model for this company over the next 45 minutes or so. That's when he finally realized this guy wasn't being greedy at all. He saw things like, the impact of adding dollars to the cost of goods could mean not being able to support R&D, or not being able to hire people and grow, having to lay people off, etc.

We modeled real-world events to the extent possible in such a simple analysis. For example, container shipping from China in the last couple of years, went from $2000 to $20000 or more (round numbers). The cost of fuel doubled. Many product categories went up as much as 25% due to international trade tariffs. These inputs chain-reaction through the entire supply chain and affect the costs of other products. The company that makes packaging, boxes, for you is paying more for everything, so your packaging becomes more expensive. Etc. If your profit is razor thin you cannot survive such events.

In short, while from the outside focusing on profit might look like the entire purpose of the enterprise. The reality is that, if you want to deliver good products or services, remain competitive, grow, keep people employed, etc. you are forced to maximize profit to the extent possible or none of that can happen.

From the outside it looks like the motivation is inverted: Profit as the driver. From the inside it is exactly the opposite: If I want to make great products and remain viable for a long time, I have no choice but to deliver great products but also maximize profit. If I don't the business will eventually fail.

Are there people who only care about money? Of course. Then again, you could say that about every single person with a 401K and a Roth IRA. We all maximize for profit. Not because profit is our overriding objective. Profit is necessary in order to be able to realize our actual objectives.

BTW, I have about ten years of experience in the media industry. I was CTO at a startup run by a guy who had been the president of Universal Pictures for a dozen years or so. The best way I can describe it is: A combination of YouTube and Netflix. The startup was way too early. Streaming costs were simply unreasonable. The business model simply did not work. And, yes, this guy ran the thing purely on ego...right into the ground. I did meet and work with some of the most famous stars, directors and other folks in Hollywood though. It was a ride, that's for sure.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking from very different perspectives - not just extremely different life experiences from every possible point of view, but also thinking of different kinds of companies. I'm sure many of your arguments do apply to small-to-medium companies in manufacturing-like companies. But if you're thinking a company like Facebook or Disney or Electronic Arts or Bank of America operates on a fear of going bankrupt, yo…

Much, if not all, of what you say in this post is absolutely true. The difference, in my view, and what tends to make me react negatively, is making a blanket statement that all business is driven by profit. The picture you paint in this comment if far more balanced that that because you cover specific types of businesses and make distinctions. I think you understand that, just like people are different, businesses a…

I'll add this real quick:

A decade later I found myself having to face hiring sales people for my business. I had, up to that point, done that job myself but it was seriously getting in the way of my need to focus on engineering.

There is nothing that focuses your mind on the importance of profit than the agony that it can be to find and hire competent sales people. I sought advice from other business owners at the time. Took people out to lunch/dinner to have this conversation. I cannot remember a single person rolling their eyes and then telling me horror stories when I opened with: How do you hire good sales people?

I experienced months of financial and emotional pain as I hired and paid sales people seriously good salaries and they did not even deliver enough sales to cover their own salaries, much less provide for the other employees. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars --burned, really-- on them. It was brutal.

This is why one of my favorite quotes is:

"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way" -Mark Twain

This is so true. Nothing focuses the mind better than grabbing on to that tail and not letting go. Entrepreneurship, business, is brutal in this way. It can be almost impossible to understand from the outside. It can even be impossible to understand from the inside. The engineer and warehouse worker are not generally aware of what it takes to hold on to that tail and what the business has to produce in order for them to have a job.

How much profit does a company have to make in order to be able to hire someone making x? Say x = $100K.

$100K profit? No. That formula is not sustainable.

$200K? Maybe. It depends on the nature of the business.

Restaurant, maybe. Web software engineering operation? Possibly. Hardware engineering/manufacturing operation? No way.

It is hard to nail this number down because it depends on the nature of the business, industry, etc. In a manufacturing business you need a tremendous amount of cash parked in a warehouse in the form of components, inventory, equipment, etc. If we are talking about a web SaaS, the costs structure is different and varies significantly with scale. Netflix vs. a dating app, for example. In other words, this question can only be answered with the benefit of context.

It could very well be that a company has to be able to produce a million dollars in profit in order to justify hiring someone for $150K (which, after benefits and other costs, actually means about $200K. Few people understand this reality when they get a paycheck. I can see how, without this insight, it could look like the guy focusing on making that million in profits can look like a greedy bastard to the guy who costs the company $200K. I can see how it could look almost criminal to someone looking at it without any context at all from the outside.

You have to hold the cat by the tail to understand.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of those is free. You still pay for it, plus you pay for the government's cost of administering it. You're worse off. With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.

Walter, it’s amazing how often I see you weigh in on economic and political issues on this forum when you have a poor grasp of even the basics. Claiming that privatised healthcare is somehow more efficient in spite of overwhelming real world evidence to the contrary, or that people are capable of meaningfully informed choices in picking a healthcare plan and somehow find it life-enhancing to have to do this, or ignor…

Are you sure about your points?

I've never made the claim that privatized health care is more efficient. I have claimed that free market health care is more efficient. If you've got evidence that government health care is more efficient, let alone overwhelming evidence, I'd like to see it.

From what I've seen from high school economics, they can laugh at me all they want. But they don't know anything as they are taught by high school teachers who don't have any training in economics and have never held a private sector job or run a business.

Here's a reference for you with plenty of evidence that contradicts your claims. Read it and get back to me.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...

BTW, you made one of my points for me. You just said that having the government force a plan on you is better than you picking your own plan. You gave up your freedom for security. Exactly what I was talking about.

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#769
post #428
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlike Mexico, New York City does not need to maintain its borders or enforce a monopoly on the use of force and a supreme law -- because New York City is not a Westphalian state, it is just a municipal government covering a few hundred square miles! you'd think that's the case, but it seems fairly normal for countries to have more police officers than soldiers[1][2]. Just looking at g8 countries: soldiers police o…

That makes sense by number of personnel, but not overall budget. Your local police department doesn't need tanks and aircraft carriers...

The NYPD does actually maintain tanks

God only knows what they expect to do with them

Re: Amazon workers on Staten Island vote to unionize

#770
post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s at best a semantic argument as refundable tax breaks can result in a net payment by the government. As in you can revive 1,400$ having never paid any money to the government. A more common example is to pay nothing and also get a rebait to avoid paying taxes in the future.

I see. You think that the money you make belongs to the government, and they just allow you to keep a bit of it. The $1400 stimulus payment was not a tax break nor was it income.

The money actually does belong to the government. They print it. Distribute it. And then they take it back.
Post reply on HN