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

One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 487 posts

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#291

Post by hnburnsy »

Amazon statement to Time magazine on this study...

>In an emailed statement, Amazon spokesperson Steve Kelly called the researchers’ methodology “deeply flawed” and said the company had tried to raise its concerns with the study’s authors but never heard back.

>“It’s a survey that ignores best practices for surveying, has limited verification safeguards to confirm respondents are Amazon employees, and doesn’t prevent multiple responses from the same person,” he said. Kelly added that Amazon has increased average pay to $20.50 an hour and provides a range of benefits, including health care, dental, 401(k) and pre-paid tuition.

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#292

Post by mrguyorama »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #277
bryanlarsen wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on imports than the rich do.

Imports that are actually necessary or frivolities? Also, how were poor people surviving without cheap offshore imports before those became a thing?

Well you see that thing used to be made with higher cost American labor, and those workers were paid more, so they could afford the things they were making.

When the jobs were shipped overseas, those workers were not able to get higher paying jobs, so they were stuck with less purchasing power, such that even though "stuff" is way cheaper now, all the things that couldn't be built overseas now cost an insanely higher percentage of that worker's take home pay.

Sure, you used to have to save up to buy your one pair of shoes per decade, but they mostly lasted a decade. Now you can buy three pairs for the same price, but all together they only last 5 years. You are poorer even though you can "afford" more.

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#293

Post by cookszn »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #227
Noble6 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon Warehouse positions all pay well above minimum wage, in every state. They also offer benefits. Concluding Amazon isn’t paying enough, because a large portion of their workforce qualifies for food stamps, is the wrong conclusion.

This just means that minimum wage is currently set at poverty wages. Minimum wage is set by politicians, not some arms length regulatory agency. So it's entirely possible that the minimum wage is stagnant for intractable political reasons and out of touch with reality.

Amazon warehouse pays $21+ an hour here, and you only need at least 12 hours a month to keep the job. The vast majority of workers are part time, and work in 4 hour shifts.

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#294

Post by ghiculescu »

vkou wrote: post #286
ghiculescu wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you do. You could buy shares. It won’t give you much influence in isolation, but I challenge you to show more influence over your elected representatives.

> Sure you do. You could buy shares. Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't. Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes . Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected. And isn't it weird how the people wh…

If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation. If elected representatives do what their voters want, why are we discussing this?

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#295

Post by ArcaneMoose »

coffeecloud wrote: post #288
atleastoptimal wrote: post #129

Here's the thing. This is going to happen to everyone, as in, no person will be valuable enough via the contribution of their labor to survive without subsidies. At the level of automation we've reached in society, low-skilled labor is worth, per hour, a very small amount. As AI and automation improve, the majority of people will have negligible economic utility. The only way around this is to let those people starve…

I'm not sure what you consider low-skilled - but have you tried to hire someone to build or fix anything recently? Labor jobs seem to demand a huge price right now - and I don't think anyone is predicting robots that can tile a backsplash, install a 240v outlet, or even dig a trench for a sewer line anywhere in the near future. Let alone have the cost of owning and operating such a robot be more cost effective than p…

Exactly! I used almost the same example as you doing a tier ranking of jobs impacted by AI (https://youtu.be/4KSs29EPd8M)

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#296

Post by vkou »

ghiculescu wrote: post #294
vkou wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure you do. You could buy shares. Oh, yeah, it's a great system if you're someone who has money. Most people don't. Representatives, on the other hand, can't exist without votes . Most of the money in politics is spent on convincing voters to vote for a particular rep, that's why money holds sway over politicians. But money in itself isn't actually going to get someone elected. And isn't it weird how the people wh…

If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation. If elected representatives do what their voters want, why are we discussing this?

> If it was that simple then this problem would be solved.

Only if you see the world in black and white.

My thesis is that money is a corrupting influence in politics, but is not the main driver of it.

Meanwhile, money is the only influence in corporate ownership. Which is, incidentally, why most people with money do everything in their power to try to convince us that the solution to all the problems they cause is to move more power out of democratic institutions, and into corporate ones.

> Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation.

What on earth made you think this?

I said that the politicians that get elected vaguely, in aggregate, share the views of their constituents, and you're not going to tell me the deep south in aggregate wants any of these things. It does, however, want a lot of people who talk a lot about Jesus in government, and, well, their ballot results definitely deliver them.

If you believe my thesis is wrong, roughly how much money do you think will get someone like AOC elected in a district in rural Oklahoma? Or MTG in NY's 14th district?

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#297

Post by whoitwas »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #129

Here's the thing. This is going to happen to everyone, as in, no person will be valuable enough via the contribution of their labor to survive without subsidies. At the level of automation we've reached in society, low-skilled labor is worth, per hour, a very small amount. As AI and automation improve, the majority of people will have negligible economic utility. The only way around this is to let those people starve…

BS. People with the most money have the most power, make laws, and continually grow more powerful. Labor is extremely valuable, but suppressed by those with more money.

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#298

Post by gopher_space »

bmitc wrote: post #266
hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You're forgetting that there is a finite amount of work needed and so orders-of-magnitude fewer people are required. Also, the average real purchasing power in America has been declining for a very long time and cannot afford goods and services except through taking on debt.

There is a lot of work to be done. Literally everywhere is short staffed: hospitals and other medical groups, construction, retail, restaurants, pharmacies, etc. I don't remember things being like this 20 years ago. Wherever you go, there's huge waits due to staffing issues.

There’s an aversion to calculating wages based on local rent, food, and gas prices that I haven’t found an explanation for.

If you’re hiring machinists or nurses for $2 more than fast food wages you will be continually understaffed and the local pool of skilled workers will dry up.

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#299

Post by Aunche »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #290
Aunche wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> continue to provide social safety nets Ok. So you admit that it's not a subsidy to businesses then and you're just using that word as an inflammatory talking point? > It's just a big spreadsheet, you're arguing over a cell or two, I'm arguing over the function result and working backwards from there. The problem is that if you're making wrong observations about these individual cells, you're going to write bad func…

No, I still assert government subsidies to people employed below a living wage are corporate subsidies. I am referring to citizens needing a social safety net who do not have an employer, children, or the elderly (social security, medicare, medicaid, wic, snap, section 8 housing, to name a few but not all encompassing). > Do you realize that this is exactly what Amazon wants? https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/econom…

> No, I still assert government subsidies to people employed below a living wage are corporate subsidies.

This is the first result with I look up the definition of a subsidy:

> A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

You never disagreed with the parent comment that if welfare got pulled, Amazon wages would stay just as low. In fact, states or countries with less welfare tend to have lower wages, so if it's the opposite of a subsidy for Amazon. Therefore, welfare isn't a corporate subsidy. QED.

The vast majority of the world can and does live with off of less than $17/hour and healthcare benefits, which is what Amazon pays for entry level roles these days. Even in the US, that's enough for a single person without children. If Amazon only hired only these people, would that relieve their burden of having to pay a "living wage" to people?

Re: One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid

#300

Post by ghiculescu »

vkou wrote: post #296
ghiculescu wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Clearly most voters (in your opinion) want a higher minimum wage, UBI, and greater corporate taxation. If elected representatives do what their voters want, why are we discussing this?

> If it was that simple then this problem would be solved. Only if you see the world in black and white. My thesis is that money is a corrupting influence in politics, but is not the main driver of it. Meanwhile, money is the only influence in corporate ownership. Which is, incidentally, why most people with money do everything in their power to try to convince us that the solution to all the problems they cause is t…

minimum wage is a state issue , so i’m not sure why the south matters.
Post reply on HN