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

341–350 of 487 posts

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

#341

Post by atleastoptimal »

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…

Labor is worth more because there are "choke points" which need human intervention to run. Logistics companies need legal, support, drivers, operations, etc. However as certain domains prove entirely automatable via different tools, human labor will be redundant. There will be thousands of "ghost factories" and "ghost stores" which operate perfectly 24/7 with no human employees once intelligence and robotic physical labor become cheap and reliable enough.

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

#342

Post by schmidtleonard »

parineum wrote: post #313
schmidtleonard wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> monopsony market for labor Yes, when the inelastic aggregate supply of labor (expressed as an explicit work quota or expressed as an implicit work quota equal to cost of living divided by wages) exceeds the demand for labor, capitalism turns what should be a happy situation (let's all work a bit less!) into a horror show where working hard for scraps is a privilege and rotting in unemployment is the norm.

Which system works better?

We've been here before, shortly after the industrial revolution. Some countries tried communism, some countries tried fascism, and the US tried Roosevelts. The results speak for themselves. Large, meaningful compromises to labor can thread the needle well enough to avoid bloodshed. We need us another Roosevelt.

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

#343

Post by SCUSKU »

bloppe wrote: post #327
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…

I agree that extreme inequality is generally bad and the value of labor should be higher than the value of capital. But market forces are really important for the functioning of the economy and the welfare of everybody, including low-skilled workers. Regulations like this would distort market forces. A much better solution is progressive taxation. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed much higher, with the bene…

Probably not a new idea, but something I've been wondering is if the US implemented progressive taxation, and instead of a UBI implemented a stock buyback program where the government buys shares and then redistributes ownership to citizens.

Even though this is totally wealth redistribution (which is politically unpopular, socialism and all), I bet you could market it as super American like Andrew Yang did with UBI as the "Freedom Dividend".

This way you could "work within the system" and still keep stonks going up, but also help redistribute wealth to poorer citizens.

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

#344

Post by taeric »

iancmceachern wrote: post #246
taeric wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are basically arguing that rich entities shouldn't employ low income employees, with this logic. While you can imagine this means richer people will start to do all of their low income work, that also means there are no lower income jobs. We can hope those are simply shifted up the pay scale, but it is equally as likely that the jobs just go away. Likely not full classes of jobs, mind you, but certainly there wil…

This is reducto ad absurdum

In a real sense, so is the other argument. It is not based on any real principal. It is literally reducing the argument to the absurd difference between the richest and the poorest.

I'm happy to see evidence on any studies that focus on optimal ratios of income for different people in an organization. Resting this on "relative income from the warehouse workers to the CEO" would need more than appeal to emotion.

I say all of this as someone that is all for taxing rich people.

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

#345

Post by elevatedastalt »

ptsneves wrote: post #197
pc86 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what Mitt Romney was referring to during the 2012 election when he said he wasn't worried about the very rich, and he wasn't worried about the very poor. The truth is if you are making $20k/yr in income you're likely in a better position day-to-day than someone making $40k/yr, especially if you're raising a family and especially if you live in a city with functioning social services. He was excoriated…

Compare that calibre with this year’s roster and it makes me cry. Why didn’t he run a term later?

Because people don't care who it is. If it's a Republican candidate, he will be portrayed as devil incarnate.

Mitt Romney was a smart guy who actually had plenty of on-ground experience. But no, deliberately interpreting everything he said in the worst light (anyone remember "Binders full of women"?) was more important.

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

#346

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

vidarh wrote: post #272
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if social programs were pulled then people would push harder for changes, unions, benefits, etc. As it stands now the social programs keep people pacified.

It's notable that several countries with very strong unions have no minimum wage because there's no feeling of need. Norway, for example, has less regulation of the labour market in this respect than the US (but much more in other areas) in large part because the unions have been strong enough to push through higher salaries without it. But changing that in the US would be an incredibly long slog.

That's what I was getting at. Rather than laws like minimum wage you could write pro-labor and union laws to empower workers.

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

#347

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

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…

So, your theory is that they could double their payroll because grocery stores are so high-margin that this is no big deal? Or is it that you believe they wouldn't have whiny complainoids even at $40/hour, making it expensive but worth the increased cost? What happens when their competitors need to do the same thing just to stay in business... will everyone somehow magically have the top 5% of the wagie class, and everyone will be be happier, customer, employee, and boss alike? Would the people who do no-show-no-calls stop doing those when for the first time in their lives they can afford to skip a day or two, or would they do this even more?

I'm not convinced that there is any merit in this plan.

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

#348

Post by pornel »

Symbiote wrote: post #209
Fernicia wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your null hypothesis here? Would they be better off if Amazon moved their warehouse to another state or country?

Amazon can raise prices slightly.

Or Bezos can have fewer yachts?

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

#349

Post by arathis »

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…

In Australia unskilled labourers are highly sought-after. It's physically demanding but you can do very well for yourself.

I think the realities of the workforce are wildly different to what we'd typically experience outside of the tech sector.

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

#350

Post by carlosjobim »

vkou wrote: post #281
sangnoir wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As AI and automation improve, the majority of people will have negligible economic utility Who's going to subscribe to Prime and buy stuff when everyone is poor? The Walmart/Amazon wage strategy only works if the rest of society doesn't defect too. Henry Ford understood that his workers were also consumers.

Henry Ford lived in a universe where the odds of the working class getting together and guillotining the owners were non-zero. Most of the West's labour gains were done under the shadow of the Red Scare. Nobody is seriously scared of that in 2024.

It's still fundamental logic that the masses need to be able to afford your goods if you produce mass market goods. Or are you going to stockpile them?
Post reply on HN