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

I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 209 posts

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#121

Post by sliverstorm »

marshallp wrote: post #113
chii wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only a small handful from the list you gave is actually none-contributing. The 60% of the people that derive income from gov't handouts are leeching off those who do actually work - tell me how that is fair? Disabled people/old people are dependants, but they not a majority, and as for children, they _will_ create value when they grow up. I m talking about abled bodied people who choose to get a gov't handout instead…

There is certain fallacy in that. I've never met a person who has ever thought he would like to mooch off welfare or what have you forever, or even a short amount of time. There are barriers that are difficult to see for many middle class people to see. The choice between welfare and work for many people is not between a welfare and a cubicle writing java code, but between welfare and humiliating treatment or backbre…

we ought to be able to provide better opportunities for the unfortunate

The trade-off of course being that the more growth we experience, the better quality-of-life gets for everybody in the future. On the one hand, everything is way better for most everybody than it was 200 years ago- on the other hand, like that did a whole lot of good for the dirt-poor of 200 years ago.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#122

Post by intended »

jfoutz wrote: post #52
scarmig wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume that you would need 1000 machines to have as much throughput as 4000 people. WAG, but I'd wager that each of those machines would cost $500k. That means 100 million in immediate outlays. WAG 2: fuel/electricity/maintenance is $200/month, and you need a team of 20 engineers to watch over them at $10k/engineer/month. So recurring costs come to $400k. Which brings us to: 100M/1.3M = 77 months, or between 6…

Labor costs are likely double, if not more, than what i've estimated. overtime + insurance + drug testing + security + all the other crap i'm forgetting.

Well if you treat people as human machines, remove unionizing ability and what have you, then you can bring yourself to competitive levels with China, which has kinda made a very persuasive point that human robots are cheaper than mechanical ones.

The only issue with labor of course is the so called 'managing' aspect of it, which covers things like quality of life. Robots don't have and will never complain about, while being able to do tasks at a level that most humans wont ever be able to.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#125

Post by intended »

cynicalkane wrote: post #97
Steko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing knee jerk about his comment, he's pointing out that there's a middle ground between these warehouses and Soviet bayonets.

> a unionized workforce similar to what we had in the US 30 years ago before Democrats gave up the fight and American capitalists started shipping jobs overseas in order to break up unions. This post is almost content free and to the extent it has content, it's somewhat inaccurate. Unions are just one part of why globalization saves costs. Worse, it's an inaccuracy committed for the sake of injecting politics.

Look I get that HN has a pretty homogenous view on politics and a strong libertarian bent, but if its come to a point that this guy is getting called out for injecting politics, then I have to say that for me the rest of the comments also are infused with politics.

Its just that those other comments are infused with politics which match the dominant frame of thought on HN.

The OP may not have had the subtlety as other posters, that doesn't mean that there isn't value to be taken from his point, which can be discussed further:

--------------

China is eating jobs because it can afford to undercut labor prices around the world. That is their competitive advantage, and it makes their country better and stronger for it.

While their work conditions degrade human beings but that IS better than what was there before.

Countries like India lose jobs to China, because their workforce is better and the final products cheaper. American jobs at the bottom of the pyramid are at risk because they competition at that level is fierce.

How would you employ people at the bottom of the pyramid, who don't have the jobs/education/ or ability to get into tech, while giving them decent working conditions and the chance to go up the ladder?

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#126

Post by to_jon »

More than call centers, this industry reminds me of the meatpacking industry. Warehouse workers fill a crucial step in a larger fulfillment model that unnecessarily imposes harsh conditions on its workforce. The writer mentions picking 500 items during her last morning on the job, which probably represents anywhere from 200 to 300 orders (assuming the average book or dildo order is small). Over a 5 hour period, that represents 40 to 60 orders per hour, picked at real hourly cost of perhaps $14. In other words, a slower picking rate and higher wages might cost consumers several extra dimes per order. It's reasonable to say that passing this additional cost to consumers would have a trivial impact on shopper's wallets, while fueling a strong wealth creation effect in the community where the warehouse is located as its workers can actually afford to spend their way into a middle class lifestyle.

Likewise, the meatpacking industry is infamous for its brutal working conditions and low wages. It has bred many low income, working poor communities plighted by gangs, crime, and despair. The solution to righting the industry and its communities is obvious- pay employees real, middle class wages. But the industry has been fighting a race to the bottom, as the wholesalers of meat products will obviously pick the meatpacking company that can sell at the lowest cost. Because better wages would only increase the price supermarkets pay for meat by several cents per pound, one meatpacking company CEO has openly called for imposing higher wage levels across the entire industry (easier than done). The introduction of higher wages would boost local economies and in aggregate that contributes to the nation's prosperity.

The industries are examples of capitalism at its most efficient and of capitalism utterly failing society as well.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#127

Post by ghshephard »

intended wrote: post #122
jfoutz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor costs are likely double, if not more, than what i've estimated. overtime + insurance + drug testing + security + all the other crap i'm forgetting.

Well if you treat people as human machines, remove unionizing ability and what have you, then you can bring yourself to competitive levels with China, which has kinda made a very persuasive point that human robots are cheaper than mechanical ones. The only issue with labor of course is the so called 'managing' aspect of it, which covers things like quality of life. Robots don't have and will never complain about, whi…

Re: " China, which has kinda made the point that human robots are cheaper than mechanical ones."

Not for long.

"The China Business News on Monday quoted Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou as saying the company planned to use 1 million robots within three years, up from about 10,000 robots in use now and an expected 300,000 next year."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-foxconn-robots-...

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#128

Post by kijin »

chii wrote: post #110
kijin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there are two different issues at hand: 1) Will there ever come a day when people can produce value merely by living? That really depends on what "value" is, and as you said, the standards of the day may differ from ours. Under some circumstances, merely being a consumer might be enough to contribute to some overall good. If energy becomes cheap enough, even a tiny benefit might be enough to offset a person's e…

1) I dont believe being a "consumer" can by itself have any value 2) The real question is, whether the left over capacity could be put to better use, instead of keeping alive those not pulling their weight (when they could've). Would science and tech be that much more advanced because there'd be money to put into research and development? Would infrastructure be better because money isn't "wasted" on people who other…

Fair point, especially #1.

As for #2, the thing with social policies that they have long-term effects on a much larger scale. For example, one could plausibly argue that a robust "safety net" encourages people to take adventures, making it easier for kids from poor families to innovate even if they know that 90% of startups fail. This allows the society as a whole to benefit from the small number of startups that actually do succeed. Handouts, in that case, would be a sort of investment.

Also, this thread is about a hypothetical future society where there is a surplus of human labor due to automation. If you're going to pay people to carry out meaningless tasks that are not necessary in the first place, what's the difference between that and just giving them a handout?

Or so goes the argument. It's harder to prove that in reality. Also, if you care deeply about fairness between individuals, as in your other comment, I can understand why you might object to certain types of handouts.

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#129

Post by savramescu »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #112
batista wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding? The US has had its hands on oil and other resources the world over, ensuring favorable prices, preferential treatment and US petrol companies' control over oil springs. To the point of overthrowing governments, including Iran's democratic one back in the day, when they took a oil policy they didn't like. Here's a small example: Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to…

My question is whether Sweden pays a higher price for oil (ignoring taxes) than the US, not whether the US attempts to keep oil prices low. None of your links address the question I actually asked. If Iraqi oil is fully exploited, I agree this will result in lower oil prices. But oil prices are set by the global market - the price Sweden pays = global price + shipping cost, same as the US.

This is not about the price of oil. Sweden and the US may pay the same price. But who's extracting it? Who's making the profit in the sale?

Re: I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave: Inside the online-shopping shipping machine

#130

Post by ars »

scarmig wrote: post #46
jfoutz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. 4000 people @ 11/hr for a month? even without overtime that's 1.7 million. The automation can't be nearly that expensive.

Let's assume that you would need 1000 machines to have as much throughput as 4000 people. WAG, but I'd wager that each of those machines would cost $500k. That means 100 million in immediate outlays. WAG 2: fuel/electricity/maintenance is $200/month, and you need a team of 20 engineers to watch over them at $10k/engineer/month. So recurring costs come to $400k. Which brings us to: 100M/1.3M = 77 months, or between 6…

> Let's assume that you would need 1000 machines to have as much throughput as 4000 people.

I think your assumption is way off. For one each machine works 3 times as long as a person (24 hours a day vs 8).

Post reply on HN