I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine • Hacker News Board

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#101

Post by marshallp » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:20 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #91

rabidsnail wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not go one step further and have elastic fulfillment centers? Nobody keeps inventory around for that long. Unless you're speculating on the future supply of a product you're only keeping stuff in stock for the buffer between when a whole palette comes in and when you need another one. So you can rent "fulfillment instances" as you need to order more inventory.

Combining my replies: > "Sounds like an opportunity for a standardized, flexible industrial robot platform geared towards rentals." This would work if different businesses have significantly different seasonalities - but on the aggregate in North America this is not true. Amazon gets the same Xmas rush as Wal-Mart, along with Target, Macy's, and whatnot. The number of businesses whose rush season is out of sync with…

But with robots, you can probably get them to be cheaper even when taking into account seasonality. The real problem is that lots of manufacturers/wareshouses only keep a 3 year investment horizon. If they invested with a 10 year payoff, a lot more automation is possible. (It mirrors the problem in the economy as a whole - short termism)

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#102

Post by ajkessler » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:26 AM UTC

lwat wrote: post #85

jfoutz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor costs are likely double, if not more, than what i've estimated. overtime + insurance + drug testing + security + all the other crap i'm forgetting.

Still, most companies just do not have a $100 million to change to a robotic system.

Most companies don't have 4000 employees, or need 1000 robots. Like every business, you add capacity as necessary. Diapers.com started with one mom and minivan.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#103

Post by bostonvaulter2 » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:29 AM UTC

I'm actually surprised that the workers are getting so much over minimum wage yet are being so poorly treated. Why not just pay them closer to minimum wage since there are so many willing workers?

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#104

Post by marshallp » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:30 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #77

kijin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Machines have been replacing jobs for over 200 years now, but I don't think there's been a huge increase in unemployment over that period. We've always managed to invent more meaningless and repetitious tasks for ourselves to do. One might say that most office jobs nowadays are like that, too. Factories replaced farms, cubicles replaced factories. But usually this happened over generations, so people had a chance to…

"we might finally get a chance to rethink the age-old rule that a person must work in order to survive." i m a stern believer that people has to produce value. And until a person can produce value merely by living, people will have to work to survive. Value right now is measured by money, and money has a limited capability in measuring things that are very subjective (how do you measure the value a nice person brings…

Children, old people, disabled people, unemployed people, many politicians, many lawyers, criminals, spammers, many landowners, trust fundies, members of royal families, many librarians, many teachers, many policeman etc. etc. We already have people who don't actually provide value to society. In Germany, about 60 per cent of people derive most of their income from government handouts. The trend will only increase and is actually a good thing (200 years ago, almost everyone had to produce value to survive - where would most people choose, today or 200 years ago).

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#105

Post by rabidsnail » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:31 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #91

rabidsnail wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not go one step further and have elastic fulfillment centers? Nobody keeps inventory around for that long. Unless you're speculating on the future supply of a product you're only keeping stuff in stock for the buffer between when a whole palette comes in and when you need another one. So you can rent "fulfillment instances" as you need to order more inventory.

Combining my replies: > "Sounds like an opportunity for a standardized, flexible industrial robot platform geared towards rentals." This would work if different businesses have significantly different seasonalities - but on the aggregate in North America this is not true. Amazon gets the same Xmas rush as Wal-Mart, along with Target, Macy's, and whatnot. The number of businesses whose rush season is out of sync with…

> AFAIK Amazon already does this :) Look up "Fulfillment by Amazon".

So they do! It looks really expensive, though. Like more than $2 for a t-shirt. I wonder how that compares to doing it yourself at scale.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#106

Post by chii » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:34 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #74

ekianjo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, China is doing rather well NOW. How about China, like 20 or even 30 years ago ? It was a poor country, underdeveloped. And you know what changed ? Their economic system. Just that. It was so sudden in China you can easily trace the roots of their economic boom. It supports my argument, rather than yours.

> And you know what changed ? Their economic system. So the thing that we should all aspire to as a species is the venerable Chinese sweatshop? The 'perfect storm' of capitalism, anti-unionism, and corporatism?

People voted with their wallets. The verdict is very clear - most people prefer cheap goods to humanitarianism and proper treatment of workers.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#107

Post by marshallp » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:41 AM UTC

temphn wrote: post #11

lukifer wrote: post #6

These conditions aren't unique to warehouse jobs; the customer call-center industry is similar in many ways. Time is tracked down to the second, you are being recorded and/or monitored at all times, tardiness and absenteeism are ruthlessly enforced with no excuses, and there is relentless pressure to "hit your numbers", which are often nearly impossible. And of course, you're still expected to "always put the custome…

> costs of corporate capitalism But under non-capitalist systems such as in the USSR you were machine gunned or bayoneted for refusing to work (starting with the Kronstadt Rebellion and ending with Solidarity), and had no option to quit or leave the country. Capitalism hasn't yet completely eradicated all drudgery from the world, but Mother Jones isn't about to acknowledge that it's better that 4000 marginal workers…

"Corporate" or "crony" capitalism is the key word. In real capitalism people would be in charge of their own production and not subject themselves to the above. Their are all sorts of laws on the books to prevent the poor from being charge of their own value (taxi laws, food licensing, planning permits etc.) as well as curbs on investment (you can't invest in the host upcoming company unless you're already a millionaire) and lending (poor people aren't eligible for loans to start busineses). Not to mention the biggest evil - public schools, where poor children are subjected to deskilling of their natural talents (schooling is important - why not give vouchers and let small businesses operate school - in third world countries this is the norm and they far outperform government schools).

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#108

Post by chii » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:43 AM UTC

marshallp wrote: post #104

chii wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we might finally get a chance to rethink the age-old rule that a person must work in order to survive." i m a stern believer that people has to produce value. And until a person can produce value merely by living, people will have to work to survive. Value right now is measured by money, and money has a limited capability in measuring things that are very subjective (how do you measure the value a nice person brings…

Children, old people, disabled people, unemployed people, many politicians, many lawyers, criminals, spammers, many landowners, trust fundies, members of royal families, many librarians, many teachers, many policeman etc. etc. We already have people who don't actually provide value to society. In Germany, about 60 per cent of people derive most of their income from government handouts. The trend will only increase an…

only a small handful from the list you gave is actually none-contributing.

The 60% of the people that derive income from gov't handouts are leeching off those who do actually work - tell me how that is fair? Disabled people/old people are dependants, but they not a majority, and as for children, they _will_ create value when they grow up. I m talking about abled bodied people who choose to get a gov't handout instead of doing work to sustain their own life. The world would be better off if those people weren't given handouts.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#109

Post by potatolicious » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:45 AM UTC

marshallp wrote: post #101

potatolicious wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combining my replies: > "Sounds like an opportunity for a standardized, flexible industrial robot platform geared towards rentals." This would work if different businesses have significantly different seasonalities - but on the aggregate in North America this is not true. Amazon gets the same Xmas rush as Wal-Mart, along with Target, Macy's, and whatnot. The number of businesses whose rush season is out of sync with…

But with robots, you can probably get them to be cheaper even when taking into account seasonality. The real problem is that lots of manufacturers/wareshouses only keep a 3 year investment horizon. If they invested with a 10 year payoff, a lot more automation is possible. (It mirrors the problem in the economy as a whole - short termism)

> "But with robots, you can probably get them to be cheaper even when taking into account seasonality."

I can't say much without violating some NDA or another, but I'd check that assumption. Industrial robotics are anything but cheap, and remember, you're stacking them up against near-minimum wage laborers who have little to no benefits and you only pay for them when they're utilized.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#110

Post by chii » Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 5:48 AM UTC

kijin wrote: post #94

chii wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we might finally get a chance to rethink the age-old rule that a person must work in order to survive." i m a stern believer that people has to produce value. And until a person can produce value merely by living, people will have to work to survive. Value right now is measured by money, and money has a limited capability in measuring things that are very subjective (how do you measure the value a nice person brings…

Well, there are two different issues at hand: 1) Will there ever come a day when people can produce value merely by living? That really depends on what "value" is, and as you said, the standards of the day may differ from ours. Under some circumstances, merely being a consumer might be enough to contribute to some overall good. If energy becomes cheap enough, even a tiny benefit might be enough to offset a person's e…

1) I dont believe being a "consumer" can by itself have any value

2) The real question is, whether the left over capacity could be put to better use, instead of keeping alive those not pulling their weight (when they could've). Would science and tech be that much more advanced because there'd be money to put into research and development? Would infrastructure be better because money isn't "wasted" on people who otherwise make no contributions? Sure, morally, you gotta help those in need. But a line ought to be drawn - people who could otherwise have worked, shouldn't be given free handouts just because the enocomy of the country _could support them_.