One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by devmor » Fri, May 24, 2024, 8:41 PM UTC

astrange wrote: post #464

devmor wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These datapoints strengthen my argument. More Americans are in the workforce than ever before, because every household requires more laborers to do work for less compensation. Federal employment data also does not paint a cohesive picture of the situation. For one, it does not include undocumented labor - the labor that makes up the vast majority of incredibly low paid positions. Secondly, it is inflated by the fact…

> More Americans are in the workforce than ever before, because every household requires more laborers to do work for less compensation. That isn't what they show. Actually what they show is that households have gotten smaller over time, because people have gotten richer/older and no longer live with their parents. > Federal employment data also does not paint a cohesive picture of the situation. These numbers come f…

No, unfortunately you are mistaken - the US media does not inform my worldview as I generally do not consume it without supplement.

My idea of how the economy works is informed by the state of the economy for real people - unlike yours, which relies entirely on federal data manipulated to present the picture that the federal government is succeeding in its economic policy. They do “know what they’re doing”, certainly. You on the other hand, do not seem to.

Every single thing you have said here is wrong or a misunderstanding of what data has actually been gathered and where it comes from.

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

#472

Post by astrange » Fri, May 24, 2024, 10:02 PM UTC

devmor wrote: post #471

astrange wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More Americans are in the workforce than ever before, because every household requires more laborers to do work for less compensation. That isn't what they show. Actually what they show is that households have gotten smaller over time, because people have gotten richer/older and no longer live with their parents. > Federal employment data also does not paint a cohesive picture of the situation. These numbers come f…

No, unfortunately you are mistaken - the US media does not inform my worldview as I generally do not consume it without supplement. My idea of how the economy works is informed by the state of the economy for real people - unlike yours, which relies entirely on federal data manipulated to present the picture that the federal government is succeeding in its economic policy. They do “know what they’re doing”, certainly…

The BLS is an independent agency. There isn't a single "the federal government" that cares about its image like this. Nor does "the federal government" have a single economic policy. It has, like, two or three of them and some (fiscal vs monetary policy) are directly opposed to each other.

A monthly survey of 60k households is "talking to real people" and it's the only way to get accurate impressions of what's happening to them. If you rely on people bitching then you'll get a negativity bias.

> Every single thing you have said here is wrong or a misunderstanding of what data has actually been gathered and where it comes from.

I understand it fine. You seem to have moved from not realizing I was posting direct survey data, to coping by just claiming the numbers are made up.

Note that if you claim it's made up now, why was it not made up in 2009 or 2020 when it did look bad?

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

#473

Post by throwaway14356 » Fri, May 24, 2024, 11:08 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #71

throwaway14356 wrote: post #56

I would like to see negative income tax. You have to insert the fresh printed money into the economy some place. Why not have people work for it?

Through the Earned Income Tax Credit a some low earners do experience a negative federal income tax. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/earned-income...

Income inequality is a big problem but this would be the only remedy I wouldn't like. Maybe do a percentage that excludes earnings beyond 500k

Should we want businesses that need public money to continue to operate? I suppose one should critically examine their usefulness. If they fail 0% income tax on salary would be good enough.

OT: It struck me a while back what work was involved in running a government using only paper. I guess they all found ways to burn the excessive funds over the years as the real work kinda vanished. I hear Estonia made an effort to write laws that are easy to automate simply because they didn't have money.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/1a89ed5e-en.pdf?expi...

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

#474

Post by dpig_ » Sat, May 25, 2024, 2:11 AM UTC

skjoldr wrote: post #440

Nevermark wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. The more tasks that are automated, the more easily a low level worker is replaced. And the less they will get paid. Think warehouses, checkout attendants, gig workers, … The masses of jobs don’t require unique humans. And the more is automated, the less individual worker skills matter. For mo…

> Human workers are not getting smarter. Everyone is walking around with devices that connect them to nearly the total sum of human knowledge. Not acting on that to get out of an easily replaceable job is a skill issue. Also, the education systems currently aren't the best. Automation and IT hasn't penetrated them as much as is feasible.

> skill issue

"To each according to his ability. Everyone else suck shit."

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

#475

Post by skjoldr » Sat, May 25, 2024, 4:32 AM UTC

dpig_ wrote: post #474

skjoldr wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human workers are not getting smarter. Everyone is walking around with devices that connect them to nearly the total sum of human knowledge. Not acting on that to get out of an easily replaceable job is a skill issue. Also, the education systems currently aren't the best. Automation and IT hasn't penetrated them as much as is feasible.

> skill issue "To each according to his ability. Everyone else suck shit."

Being unable to learn is a matter of either unwillingness or disability.

Nowadays it's easier to learn than ever, and the real rates of intellectual disabilities/neurodiversity hadn't gone up that much. Such conditions are just easier to diagnose nowadays.

Thus yes, if you won't learn, and you can't prove that it's an organic problem, enjoy a job that sucks.

Blaming capitalism for that is meaningless.

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

#476

Post by seec » Sat, May 25, 2024, 8:28 PM UTC

alfnor wrote: post #436

Nevermark wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. The more tasks that are automated, the more easily a low level worker is replaced. And the less they will get paid. Think warehouses, checkout attendants, gig workers, … The masses of jobs don’t require unique humans. And the more is automated, the less individual worker skills matter. For mo…

But isn't it more profitable to replace a high-cost job like a data analyst or logistics expert than 10-20 low-cost jobs like warehouse workers? Like the cost of the machines and the maintenance probably will end up costing more than humans.

Except replacing the data analyst is very difficult, especially since he probably brings to the table a good amount of human intuition is involved (thinking).

You cannot replace it straight with an AI or automated process because we just don't have the tech yet and you cannot replace it easily with any other human because it requires not only a particular education but also very specific skills that are not ubiquitous.

That human has more leverage and this is why he is getting paid more. It's very logical but I don't think it is fair to the other humans at the bottom, because while they are much easier to replace, they are still very necessary.

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

#477

Post by seec » Sat, May 25, 2024, 8:38 PM UTC

galdosdi wrote: post #470

Nevermark wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. The more tasks that are automated, the more easily a low level worker is replaced. And the less they will get paid. Think warehouses, checkout attendants, gig workers, … The masses of jobs don’t require unique humans. And the more is automated, the less individual worker skills matter. For mo…

> Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that. But there's no objective way to measure valuable other than what the output is and what happens if the resource is removed. That's circular reasoning. You want to believe that doing something easy can't possibly be as valuable, but, it sure can, it's all a matter of supply and demand. We've all seen boomtown situations, especially if we read history…

There would be an objective way but it wouldn't be politically accepted. Because then there wouldn't be so much difference in compensation for work and it doesn't do rich people or politicians any good. After all, if everyone is closer in net worth, many of the problems politicians are supposed to solve just go away.

In any case, objectively the ones who get a shit ton of money just for owning a stock or just leading (making choices, good or bad) are overcompensated compared to the rest.

Supply and demand don't work for this type of stuff because demand (for better paid jobs/position) is basically infinite while supply is artificially constrained: we are making sure that only one in a hundred or one in a thousand can get the position, regardless of actual worker competence. One might be perfectly good enough for the job but if all the positions are taken, he will have to settle for a lower position.

The fact is that the difference between lower levels of pay and higher ones is way too large and this inequality has increased 10-50-fold in the last 50 years. Clearly the system is broken.

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

#478

Post by seec » Sun, May 26, 2024, 2:48 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #368

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This itself is a fallacy derived from the Keynesian crowd. There isn't unlimited demand for labor and never was. In the real world at microeconomic and local levels, labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting and people who are already employed. This number is ultimately countable and finite. There are not infinite jobs available.

> isn't unlimited demand for labor and never was Correct. But we're nowhere close to it. To the extent labor is a limiting factor on growth, it's in its lack of adequate supply. > In the real world at microeconomic and local levels, labor demand is absolutely limited to discrete job posting and people who are already employed You're describing edge cases, e.g. mining towns and war zones. In enterprises, it's an open…

If what you say was even remotely true, wages would increase automatically because there would be superior demand to offer. Yet this does not happen.

In the end business output is constrained by demand and unlimited growth is a big fat lie. There are only so many goods/services that can be sold to people.

At some point you run into a situation where everyone has more stuff than they know what to do with (especially true if it is working people, because they are time constrained) and there are more services on offer that they are needs for, regardless of price/affordability.

If you do a thought experiment and give everyone infinite money you will realize that you will be constrained by real world considerations, just like the housing market is constrained by location...

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

#479

Post by pas » Sun, May 26, 2024, 3:06 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #214

pas wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

worth of labor is not the worth of product/service. Amazon picks the places where it can hire extremely cheap labor, because usually they are the only game in town. (monopsony market for labor.) it happened without automation and happens with automation too. of course it's on society to help those who are stuck in these unfortunately places.

> Amazon picks the places where it can hire extremely cheap labor, because usually they are the only game in town That only works for some of their locations. They are limited by the need for their distribution centers to be in good proximity to the customers they deliver to. In my area, that means their largest distribution center is in one of the more expensive areas of the city. And the other big one is in a less-…

Sure, but their move into cities was after they already had a brutal margin and the free money press of AWS.

And cost pressure always applies.

They might put smaller less labor-intensive centers in those places. (Maybe a handover depo for last-mile delivery with some Prime stuff.) Though, of course, maybe the cost of managing non-uniform centers is more than vice versa.

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

#480

Post by calibas » Sun, May 26, 2024, 4:09 PM UTC

Noble6 wrote: post #456

calibas wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon Warehouse positions all pay well above minimum wage, in every state Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, so that's not saying much. Going by state minimum wage, your statement is incorrect. According to Google the average Amazon warehouse worker in California makes $17-18 an hour. California minimum wage is $16 per hour.

Wherever you’re getting the pay rate info is wrong. You can go to the Amazon Hiring site and see they’re offering $20.75/hr right now in California. Amazon has always paid high wages for warehouse work, and not even close to the Federal line, so brining that up proves nothing.

I'm sure Bezos appreciates the PR you're doing for him, but you're wrong. "Up to $20.75/hr" is what they're offering, that's not the same as $20.75/hr. The pay rates marginally above minimum wage for California.

https://hiring.amazon.com/app#/jobDetail?jobId=JOB-US-000000...