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

301–310 of 487 posts

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

#301

Post by [deleted] »

mrguyorama wrote: post #283
bmitc wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet those places are entirely unwilling, and sometimes literally economically unable, to increase what they are offering to fill those positions. It's not staffing issues. Companies very clearly are willing to overwork their existing staff rather than hire new. There's a store of our local grocery chain that is placed in an extremely high traffic, high income, extremely high wealth portion of the state. It pulls…

[deleted]

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

#302

Post by seanmcdirmid »

locococo wrote: post #284
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that how the market should work? Economically depressed area has people in need of jobs, companies should come in and satisfy that demand, making the place less economically depressed and eventually raising the cost of labor. No point to put an Amazon warehouse in Seattle’s south lake Union neighborhood, for example.

it's not how it works if there is a monopoly. E.g amazon is the only employer. I think this is where the local and federal governments should step in. If someone is working for 40 hours and needs foods stamps then the companies should be required to reimburse the government. It's a disgrace for society to take advantage of people like that.

If Amazon has a monopoly because they are the only ones interested in taking advantage of the surplus labor, then that’s a huge problem, but unless they are somehow locking other companies out, they aren’t the cause of that problem. Are you trying to tell me that Amazon shouldn’t bring those jobs to those areas, and that would somehow be better for the residents? I don’t see any good logic in that, yes, they are taking advantage of an opportunity, but no, those people are worse off if they don’t take advantage.

I’d love to see you go to a place like Yazoo Mississippi and tell the residents how lucky they are to not have Amazon there employing them.

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

#303

Post by xyzzy123 »

abfan1127 wrote: post #260
michael9423 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's the opposite. At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker. So the issue is simply in how corporations are set up and how the stock market is designed. The entire system is designed to drain as much val…

how have the shareholders siphoned off money? dividends? Has amazon ever paid a dividend? does capital investment provide no value? If "shareholders" suddenly sold the stock, would the workers dump money into the organization to keep it afloat? There are a whole host of logical fallacies here.

When an activity produces an economic surplus there's a pretty obvious conflict that occurs in terms of how that surplus will be distributed between workers and capital owners.

You can search for "productivity vs compensation" to see the classic graph that shows compensation and productivity decoupling around 1980 in the US. One such is e.g: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ or for Australia (because that's where I live) over a different timeframe: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/has-worker-compensation-refl... - I'm not sure anybody has conclusively identified the root cause although a lot of people have ideas.

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

#304

Post by yonran »

It is counterproductive to shame an employer for hiring hundreds of thousands of low-income workers who would likely be on government assistance regardless of Amazon. By all means, we can regulate companies to ensure that working conditions are safe and encourage companies to provide more opportunities for advancement. But the act of hiring low-wage workers who need welfare is a good thing. What are other companies doing to employ non-college-educated workers in the bad parts of town?

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

#305

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

michael9423 wrote: post #182
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…

Actually, it's the opposite. At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker. So the issue is simply in how corporations are set up and how the stock market is designed. The entire system is designed to drain as much val…

> Actually, it's the opposite. At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to

If this were even slightly true, you could just go out and offer your labor on the street corner, and people would jump at the chance to buy it from you. Or you could "harvest" your labor and sell it retail to others trivially, and just loaf around half the year on the cool half million you earned the other half.

You can't do these things, and few can. Your labor has no economic value whatsoever, nor does the labor of most other people.

> The entire system is designed to drain as much v

Designed by who? Why does everyone use the word design here? It sounds every bit as dumb to say "design" here as it would if we were talking about biology. The system evolved. No one person got to design, or parts of it, nor did a committee. If some billionaire or pope or warlord wanted to redesign it today, he couldn't. It's never been designable. No one would even know how to design it so that they could get the results they desired.

> Being able to buy and sell shares is not problematic per se, but there should be rules in place that give all workers of a publicly traded company better access to owning parts of said company.

How could it possibly be more accessible? If a hobo walked off the street smelling like poop and vodka, with a wad of money in his hands, right into the broker's office... do you think they'd turn down the money?

Did you mean affordable?

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

#306

Post by the_real_cher »

silverquiet wrote: post #265
the_real_cher wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just Google your state plus food stamps. Typically that will lead to a portal for all of the Social services benefits. If not they need to also Google your state plus Medicare, as long as your state participated in the Medicare expansion.

It's Texas so there could be problems. Certainly no Medicare expansion.

oof yeah. Not sure what to say about that.

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

#307

Post by tremon »

ghiculescu wrote: post #282
vkou wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to trust in their morality, you have a direct ability to influence representative democracies. You have no way to influence the governance of corporations.

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.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-22/exxon-sui...

How's that working out for these people who bought shares?

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

#308

Post by locococo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #302
locococo wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not how it works if there is a monopoly. E.g amazon is the only employer. I think this is where the local and federal governments should step in. If someone is working for 40 hours and needs foods stamps then the companies should be required to reimburse the government. It's a disgrace for society to take advantage of people like that.

If Amazon has a monopoly because they are the only ones interested in taking advantage of the surplus labor, then that’s a huge problem, but unless they are somehow locking other companies out, they aren’t the cause of that problem. Are you trying to tell me that Amazon shouldn’t bring those jobs to those areas, and that would somehow be better for the residents? I don’t see any good logic in that, yes, they are taki…

The issue is simply companies taking advantage of people. We like to call it the market, but the market only works when there is a balance. I am simply advocating for a balancing force. Government or Unions usually fill this role.

I would equally challenge you to go to a warehouse and listen to peoples stories about their working conditions and personal stories.

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

#309

Post by Pet_Ant »

michael9423 wrote: post #182
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…

Actually, it's the opposite. At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker. So the issue is simply in how corporations are set up and how the stock market is designed. The entire system is designed to drain as much val…

> At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker.

You are wrong, but so very close that it's understandable.

What can be done with an hour of labour has gone up so very high. That it is true. But what has increased in value is the infrastructure of that allowed for the force multiplier. The actual value of labour thus goes down because it can be consumed so efficiently.

Since it's the infrastructure that provides most of the heavy lifting, the owners of it get the benefit.

If you need another analogy it'd be like a sport where players win the games, but it's really about the excellent coach that calls the plays. The players have no leverage even if they win all the games.

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

#310

Post by nojvek »

In any economy you need consumers and producers.

US economy has been trending towards fewer owners owning means of production.

Which makes sense, any business marginally better than their completion keeps on growing, the delta between 1st and 2nd keeps on increasing over time.

US consumer spending is strong right now. That is great for producers. If the economy goes to shit, govt can hand out stimulus and inject money into economy.

Propping up demand is very easy - stimulus checks! Propping up supply is very hard - requires great infrastructure, a check on monopolies, investments that encourage innovation and competition.

The fact that the young generation are so squeezed, they are not having kids is a sign that we’ve fucked up.

The big have gotten too big and there isn’t enough competition to prop up supply and bring prices down.

Both parties love turning on the money printer, driving up inflation.

It’s the societal equivalent of global warming. A slow disaster booking the frog.

Post reply on HN