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

391–400 of 487 posts

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

#391

Post by galdosdi »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #309
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…

> 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 v…

You're both wrong -- if you need two different resources as inputs to make something, and either missing makes the process impossible, it doesn't matter what your subjective opinions are when deciding which is more valuable. They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it.

So how come some input resources are priced a lot more highly than others? How come sometimes, say, labor gets a big cut and capital a small cut, and other times the other way around?

Supply and demand. Bargaining power. That's why. Nothing to do whatsoever with the actual value involved in the process.

What portion of the value we apportion to the suppliers of each resource is purely a political question based on bargaining power -- who is less willing to withdraw from providing their resources, etc

To use your sports analogy, if this magic genius coach can easily find plenty of any old players to execute his strategy with, then I guess he will manage to absorb the lion's share of profits. If it's hard to find players relative to supply/demand, then it doesn't matter if they're dipshits who barely manage to do anything and who just do what the coach says, it doesn't matter if anyone could do what they do. All that matters is the coach needs them and there's not enough of them. You can't have a team without the coach and you can't have a team without the players, regardless of their respective merits.

How you divide the spoils among resourceholders all of whom are critical to the process is purely political, based on leverage and negotiation, not based on actual "value" which cannot be computed unless a sports team can exist without players or without a coach and merely be a little, measurably worse.

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

#392

Post by galdosdi »

gopher_space wrote: post #365
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s an aversion to calculating wages based on local rent, food, and gas prices that I haven’t found an explanation for. If this is a recent development, I would say that it's just inertia against inflation. Are you saying this has been happening more than the past couple years?

From my perspective it’s post-pandemic behavior, but I’m just one set of eyeballs. Inflation inertia seems reasonable but this is back of the envelope math most businesses do as a matter of course.

Everyone is trying to get someone else to eat the inflation.

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

#393

Post by galdosdi »

always2slow wrote: post #388
bloppe wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average real purchasing power in America has been increasing since at least 2010: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/the-purchasi...

This is so weird.. my experience doesn't match with this data at all.

Because money doesn't buy happiness, and a lot of the increase in purchasing power is pointless stuff like the fact that you can buy an iPad that's twice as powerful for half the cost, or get YouTube for free instead of paying $50 for cable, while the things that really matter like housing go up in price relative to wages.

If you want to feel richer, look on Amazon/AliExpress and try to remember what stuff like that used to cost decades ago. It's not BS, it's very real. It's amazing how cheap random knickknacks are now.

But, you're right -- it's a pyrrhic victory because I'd rather own my own home and have a tough time affording a breadmaker and blender than rent forever and easily afford having all the gadgets that I do, and I think most people feel similarly.

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

#394

Post by galdosdi »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #229
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…

Labor is fluid, if everyone working for a rich company should be rich, then why would anyone work for a not rich company? It would completely lock up the labor market, where everyone vies to work at the richest company rather than the company that can use their labor the best.

That's like asking why would anyone go to college anywhere but Harvard. They would, but Harvard has limited slots, so you do the best you can.

Also, it's weird you pose this as some kind of counterfactual proof by contradiction, it already happened, because "locking up the labor market" the way you describe is kind of what FAANG did, in at least a mild way, to software engineering, during what we now have to sadly call (if we rely on it for our livelihood) the good old days of the 2010s.

In fact, the dearth of math teachers in America probably has to do with this a little, for example. Shortage of math skills, and they really help getting into tech or finance, and the pay difference is huge, so, they suck all the oxygen out of the room.

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

#395

Post by porksoda »

sangnoir wrote: post #374
vkou wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's still fundamental logic that the masses need to be able to afford your goods if you produce mass market goods. It's fundamental logic that unless your company provides something close to 100% of the employment market (as in, you are a complete monopolist on all economic activity), you are better off paying your workers as little as possible. Your workers are a tiny portion of your customer base. Let some other…

> Your workers are a tiny portion of your customer base. Let some other sap pay theirs well. Other companies notice your "brilliant" strategy and start adopting it, and now your sales are in terminal decline as your customer base is impoverished. Short-term thinking is the Achilles heel of modern capitalism. Unless of course the new economy is automated companies trading with other automated companies; maximizing sha…

I think they're talking about one of the short stories in The State of the Art by Iain M. Banks

What a great read.

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

#396

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#397

Post by freshpretzels »

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 think UBI will be pointless because machines will be able to do all the work. Other machines will fix them. Humans will have everything they need or want deliverable by drone and summonable from their phone. Humans will then focus on love, fun, play, and exploring the subjects they are most passionate about.

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

#398

Post by galdosdi »

adamomada wrote: post #319
coffeecloud wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m not sure if it’s what you meant but have you ever tried to build or fix anything recently? It’s the opposite of low-skilled and I’d bet the majority of supposedly high-skilled workers wouldn’t have a hope of completing a job even satisfactorily. Imho labour rates are going up because they are for people who are actually doing real, scientific-definition-of-work while other people collect ridiculous paycheques for…

I've done it and I think it's neither. Neither easier nor harder than software engineering and the like. Just different tools. Very similar in a way really.

Why one pays more? Not sure. Some kind of higher barrier to entry for software, weirdly enough. Something about the working with your hands stuff I think makes it easier to persevere than working with something virtual and abstract? Just guessing here. But the smoking gun is, why is abstract math achievement so low in America? Like a small minority of grown adults can do basic algebra. Yet a lot of blue collar work really is just as intellectually demanding. I mean you're constantly solving the [[Planning problem]] and all kinds of problems that come up in [[Operations research]]

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

#399

Post by porksoda »

adolph wrote: post #273
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…

> The only way around this is to let those people starve or implement UBI. False dilemma. There are other methods to implement tax and redistribute. Additionally some countries like Canada and Switzerland are taking the lead in offering legal frameworks for life management solutions.

Please say more about "legal frameworks for life management solutions". You can't just drop those words in that order with no further context and walk away.

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

#400

Post by seanmcdirmid »

galdosdi wrote: post #394
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor is fluid, if everyone working for a rich company should be rich, then why would anyone work for a not rich company? It would completely lock up the labor market, where everyone vies to work at the richest company rather than the company that can use their labor the best.

That's like asking why would anyone go to college anywhere but Harvard. They would, but Harvard has limited slots, so you do the best you can. Also, it's weird you pose this as some kind of counterfactual proof by contradiction, it already happened, because "locking up the labor market" the way you describe is kind of what FAANG did, in at least a mild way, to software engineering, during what we now have to sadly ca…

So who gets to work for the richest company? The luckiest, the most connected or the hardest working? Is it better being a warehouse worker for Amazon rather than a ML engineer for a poor startup?
Post reply on HN