Live data from Hacker News

When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

nytimes.com

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#131
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I worked at Sears in college (~15 years ago) loading dock/warehouse. It was a great job at the time. Good pay, plenty of hours, and generally good managers. The downfall of Sears had very little to do with wages, but Amazon crushing all brick and mortar stores. We were dependent on foot traffic, and sales flyers in the Sunday paper - things that don't do much today.

IMHO Sears would have an opportunity now if they hadn't sold off their brands. Cobranding (for instance) Anker products as Craftsman would have me buying it there instead of Amazon for one reason: commingled inventory and fakes.

They had SO MUCH customer loyalty from Craftsman, I can't believe anyone would throw that all away.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#132
post #99

Everyone seems to only focus on the blue collar staff at Amazon. They're enot Amazon's main employees, developers are. The warehouse staff will be mostly replaced by machines in the next 5-10 years.

Main employees - care to explain what you mean?

* Largest number of people?

* Largest share of total salary?

* Most 'important'?

--

I think for a long time they are going to have a larger number of blue collar workers than white collar. In in an automated future - who will look after and maintain the robots? Don't forget that they now also own Whole Foods that currently are 'people' heavy.

Quote: While Amazon employees at its Seattle headquarters make an average salary of more than $110,000, according to Glassdoor data cited by the Seattle Times, the paper reported Thursday that the company’s median employee earned just $28,446 last year. That’s because the vast majority of Amazon’s 566,000 employees are not white-collar workers in Seattle but blue-collar workers toiling in the company’s 140 “fulfillment centers” across the country https://splinternews.com/a-staggering-number-of-amazons-empl...

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#133
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I worked at Sears in college (~15 years ago) loading dock/warehouse. It was a great job at the time. Good pay, plenty of hours, and generally good managers. The downfall of Sears had very little to do with wages, but Amazon crushing all brick and mortar stores. We were dependent on foot traffic, and sales flyers in the Sunday paper - things that don't do much today.

IMHO Sears would have an opportunity now if they hadn't sold off their brands. Cobranding (for instance) Anker products as Craftsman would have me buying it there instead of Amazon for one reason: commingled inventory and fakes.

That's a funny comment because the reason Craftsman died is thay Sears commingled it with fakes by selling the name to junk makers.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#134
post #89
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true at all. Everyone's money goes into the same pot. And "passive" investments are essentially just crowd-sourced active investments.

For every dollar passive investors produce in the market active investors produce 22. Who do you think is paid more attention too?

Are you saying that the total market value of active investments is 22x that of passive investments? Or are you saying that net returns of active investors are 22x higher than that of passive ones? Or are you saying that the total returns of active management is 22x that of passive returns?

None of those three things are true.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO Sears would have an opportunity now if they hadn't sold off their brands. Cobranding (for instance) Anker products as Craftsman would have me buying it there instead of Amazon for one reason: commingled inventory and fakes.

They had SO MUCH customer loyalty from Craftsman, I can't believe anyone would throw that all away.

the mismanagement of the craftsman brand will one day be a case study in all business schools. It is incredible how much I spent on tools with them over the years, and incredible how I'm not even sure where to buy them anymore.

IMO, the biggest mistake Sears ever made was NOT buying Home Depot when they had the chance.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#136
post #122
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

businesses don't seem to have a choice Sure they do. There are plenty of smart, prudent retirement plans for companies to offer to their employees that don't involve crippling liabilities down the road. Defined contribution pensions, tax free retirement accounts, dollar-for-dollar matching (up to a limit) etc. Defined benefit pensions were a bad idea born of a "I'll be retired before then so let's kick the can down t…

I'm not sure a defined benefit pension is inherently worse than a defined benefit salary, but the real problem is tying it to the continued life of the company rather than a nice separate fund.

You're absolutely right!

A well-executed, professionally administered, and properly run defined benefit pension system is by far superior to every other option on offer. It offers predictable costs for the employer, predictable benefits for the employer, and all of this will continue without the company for as long as the pensioner lives.

In practice, there's been a lot of subtlety to this. It's very easy to make changes with low-visibility long-term negative impacts and high-visibility short-term positive impacts. Public-sector pensions in the US have famously assumed unrealistically high discount rates, among other things, because that turns into small contributions in the short term which employees and unions love.

Decades down the line, everyone gets screwed. But the people who made the bad decisions are well beyond accountability at that point. Since they know this, everyone involved is incentivized to think short-term. Never mind the issues that arise when life expectencies increase well beyond what pension fund planners knew to work with.

The popular workaround for this is a 401k or similar. This isn't ideal by any means. It takes away the defined benefits and the predictability and certainty for pensioners! The main upside is that it also removes the kind of misaligned incentives that can encourage poor decision-making and provides more assurance that something will be there later in life.

You're completely right. Pensions, when done properly, are amazing for everyone! The alternatives kinda suck by comparison. But they're much better than the answer many pension funds have provided.

(Salaries, being compensation for a defined term as well as defined amount, can be terminated, and are also compared to current value provided. And aren't assumed to generally last until employee death.)

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#137

Sears' huge pension liabilities was cited as one of the main reasons that prevented any possible re-structuring that could have saved the company when it was declining and heading to bankruptcy... I mean, let's be realistic here. For how long was Sears in this pitiful state?... Getting all that real estate + semi-established brand was a private equity's wet dream, yet nobody ever contemplated that option. And now tha…

> Wanna increase salaries and stock grants? Sure, do it. Two quarters later Wall Street will fuck you up because your new shiny compensation model just shaved the company revenue. And guess what, they will punish you at much larger magnitude than your declining revenue. So that 5% of lost revenue is going to cost you 20% or 30% of market value, and now all those stock grants are 30% less valuable. So your great initiative just put you in a negative spiral. And now your employees will be pissed, and the press will come and write an article claiming that your once frugal company is now a money firepit and that morale is low, completely forgetting their initial narrative on how you used to fuck over your employees.

This, in a nutshell, is why capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with human flourishing. Because of the process you just described, the only possibility is an end state with a very small number of capital holders prospering and grinding the rest under their boot.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can also argue that rising minimum wages directly benefit the economy as this money will be immediatly consumed. Giving $10 to a poor person will result in $10 more goods and services demand. Giving $10 to a very rich person will probably make 1/10th of a share change hands and have no effect on the real economy whatsoever.

Might as well break some windows too to cause $100 of demand

Their must be a name for the rhetorical trick of conflating the transfer of wealth with the destruction of wealth.

Both have the potential to increase economic activity, it’s true, but that’s about all they share, from a moral perspective.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#139
post #13

I think tech workers at Amazon are closer to the Sears workers than fulfillment center folks are. My friends working at Amazon as tech workers are making money hand over fist right now. 100+ stocks each grant. On the flipside, Amazon has a "projected total comp" which they keep you at, and if you're over projected, they don't give you more which is fucked. Google gives you 80k in stock and doesn't tie your future say…

It's not just Amazon, techies at most tech companies get generous stock grants as there is a considerable talent war going on. Even non major players like Priceline group now give equity.

Re: When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated

#140
post #13

I think tech workers at Amazon are closer to the Sears workers than fulfillment center folks are. My friends working at Amazon as tech workers are making money hand over fist right now. 100+ stocks each grant. On the flipside, Amazon has a "projected total comp" which they keep you at, and if you're over projected, they don't give you more which is fucked. Google gives you 80k in stock and doesn't tie your future say…

If you ask I bet the cost of living and workload expectations makes that compensation feel a lot less than it is.
Post reply on HN