Live data from Hacker News

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

motherjones.com

151–160 of 209 posts

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

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "But with robots, you can probably get them to be cheaper even when taking into account seasonality." I can't say much without violating some NDA or another, but I'd check that assumption. Industrial robotics are anything but cheap, and remember, you're stacking them up against near-minimum wage laborers who have little to no benefits and you only pay for them when they're utilized.

Why not combine the two? Robots all year round and then hire short term laborers for the seasonal peak times.

Quite possible, and the hybrid approach is practiced quite widely - e.g., robot packing machines, robot sorting machines, etc. One big issue with hybrid approaches that require robots to run around warehouses is that humans are squishy and present a significant safety hazard that will also reduce efficiency. Much of a totally automated solution's appeal is the dramatic efficiency increase that comes from not having squishy humans on the playing field.

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

#152
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…

why so much sympathy for the first world poor? because they are visible? I find sympathy for "poor" people living in fantastic conditions morally repugnant. humanity has serious problems to tackle.

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

#153
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we might finally get a chance to rethink the age-old rule that a person must work in order to survive." i m a stern believer that people has to produce value. And until a person can produce value merely by living, people will have to work to survive. Value right now is measured by money, and money has a limited capability in measuring things that are very subjective (how do you measure the value a nice person brings…

Children, old people, disabled people, unemployed people, many politicians, many lawyers, criminals, spammers, many landowners, trust fundies, members of royal families, many librarians, many teachers, many policeman etc. etc. We already have people who don't actually provide value to society. In Germany, about 60 per cent of people derive most of their income from government handouts. The trend will only increase an…

I think you are right. Over a certain period our society will Star Trek-like be able to provide for everyone without them doing any actual work. The biggest problem is the shifting time until then. How do you treat the 70% of people that won't find jobs because there ARE none that aren't done better by a robot or an algorithm. What is fair compared to those who are still required to work? Should (mostly creative people i guess) they be compensated as they would today?

Is there a point where we can safely assume that everyone that has work is glad about it to a point where they won't need more than what the government provides for free?

People talk here about people pulling their weight, but from all of my customers the only people won't be so easily replaced are the creative designers, songwriters, etc.

The rest, law firms, translation specialists, server admins, myself(web developer)... are in jobs that i imagine to have atleast digital competition if not completly replaced in the next 100 years.

So what do we do when suddenly the majority is out of work? There will be a point when creating major patentlawsuits won't keep lawyers busy anymore, where feeding everyone won't keep farmers and production workers busy...

What does pulling your own weight mean, if all the necessary jobs for keeping society running are gone or done by robots? Not everyone can be a waiter for people that are into restaurants with human waiters. Not everyone can be a cutting edge scientist.

My best prediction is that we'll become a very inward faced society, taking care of each others emotional needs will be our main task in such a future. To say it simple, you'll finally visit your parents more often as you've promised.

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

#154
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we also need to acknowledge that the management in a company invariably enjoys collective bargaining rights... No, it's illegal for corporations to collectively bargain to set workers wages. On the flip side, if employees unionize, it's illegal for the employer to refuse to do business with them.

I think you may have reacted to what you thought he said here, rather than what he said. The management within a company (considered as a class, rather than as a singular entity "the company") does indeed bargain collectively with the workers of that company. That doesn't imply they collude with the management of other companies. I'm not sure what the consequences of that are, exactly. It does mean that it's very har…

The management within a company (considered as a class, rather than as a singular entity "the company") does indeed bargain collectively with the workers of that company.

If that's what he meant, I have no dispute. But, like you say, I can't see how that matters.

And it's pretty clear who has more leverage in the labor market: corporations. Replacing a worker is annoying but the corporation can usually afford to do without for a few months, whereas losing your job for even a short while can be devastating.

I don't think this is clear. Losing your job for a while can be devastating if you haven't planned for it, but the same is true of an unprepared company losing a valuable employee. Some empirics are necessary.

Also, it's only an effective monopsony if workers are incapable of searching for other work while they are employed.

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

#156
post #7

It strikes me that these sort of manual warehouse picking jobs will be completely gone in a few years as robots automate the picking process (as seen here with Diapers.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXOW6v0c8s )

Maybe if your product is simple. However like Amazon's warehouses those where I work do not have consistent packaging or can they. Then toss in having packages which can be broken as customers do not always need complete sets; you do want your customer's happy don't you? The stock oh, nearly a hundred thousand items in each warehouse and do you see where robots don't fit in?

What you do do is arrange inventory based on sales, size, and packaging. Looking to minimize the travel of each picker and reduce the chance of injury. You also install conveyors and similar to make moving inventory around simpler.

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

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word you are looking for is "technician".

Well, everyone's an engineer nowadays. My company has "custom service engineers." =)

I may be old school, but I don't regard anyone as an engineer without a degree in engineering.

Other wise, they're a hacker ;-)

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

#158
post #69
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The economic system is the only KEY differenciator to build an economy Are you kidding? Socio-cultural values, religious beliefs, natural resources, foreign policy, domestic policy, monetary systems, infrastructure, none of these things matter at all ? Your inferences from history might have value if we had a reliable World Simulator, where we could change and control variables at will and observe the results. But…

Socio-cultural values. Japan has totally different values from the US. China, same.Apparently that does not prevent them from all being prettu successful economically speaking. Religious beliefs. Huh ? Japan, China, same as previous point. Totally different from Europe or US. But otherwise pretty successful countries. Where's the correlation between economy and religion? Natural resources. Japan has no access to natu…

Just to throw a spanner in the works, Australia has VERY similar socio-cultural values as the USA, lots of natural resources, racist foreign policy, US based financial infrastructure (free trade, anyone) and really, we're quite different from the USA in many ways.

Not sure how this fits with the geographic based theories on climate vs. behavior.

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you phrase it this way, I can agree with some of your points. I think, more than "allowing people to become rich", I would state "respect and recognition of private property" a an important philosophical factor to enable economic growth. As of today, I have yet to hear about societies where "everything belongs to everyone" ending up being economically successful. So that might be one trait leading to success or im…

> respect and recognition of private property At some level, private property is an invention of the State. Without that, the property belongs to whoever can defend it, and whoever has the most guns wins. This becomes even more significant with the advent of intellectual property, also an invention of the State. There are many digital examples of "everything belongs to everyone" that are going extremely well, and luc…

I disagree with your point that "private property is an invention of the State". There is no need for any state to claim property on something. As you said, as long as you can defend what you have, it "belongs" to you. I'm pretty sure prehistoric men had a concept of property. Even animals have a sense of property. A dog will defend the bone it likes to chew on. A bird will fight to defend its nest. Property is rather natural.

I however agree when you say that intellectual property is an invention of the State, because that is precisely where it originates: the granting of monopoly to an individual by the hand of the King. There is no natural root in intellectual property.

> workers who lived in "company towns", in a life one step away from indentured servitude

Again, please put this rhetoric in perspective, not in the eyes of a 21st century person from a developped society, but in the eyes of a person of that time, who had the choice between staying in an enpoverished countryside, potentially victim of starvation and malnourishment, and the perspective of having a stable, paid job in a factory. People were NOT stupid. They made the choice of "more gains", not less. They ended up richer and in better position than where they started. They progressed on the social ladder. The very same story is happening with all these workers in China, queuing outside of Foxconn to get a good and sustainable job, compared to the Nothing they had in the countryside.

> The common thread between democracy and capitalism is to lessen the corrupting influence of power by distributing it: one person = one vote

Totally agree with the decentralization of power, but democracy is a poor tool to reach that goal. You elect high ranking officials who are above the laws. Who are all RICH, without exception. Who have immense powers over other individuals. And who can use violence to force their laws on you, or make you go to war and lose your life if they decide to do so. Government is, by itself, a huge body of asymmetrical power against individuals. You do not "choose" it, when you are born you are already, automatically, subject to it.

When you buy some goods, however, every dollar you spend is a vote for a product, a company. Should that company screw up, you will not buy it again. Its reputation will worsen. It will lose customers. It may go bankrupt. It is, actually, at the mercy of the decentralized power of customers who AGREE to buy it everyday or on a regular basis.

Governments (almost) never go bankrupt. Instead, they will tax you to death, they will take your property and declare it theirs (like when they forbid possession of Gold). And they will use violence to punish you and put you away in prison if you do not comply. And you will have no way out, but to leave the country (if you can).

Governments CAN be useful, but I think in most developed countries they have gone way further than what their initial role was supposed to be. That's a vast subject, anyway.

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

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you phrase it this way, I can agree with some of your points. I think, more than "allowing people to become rich", I would state "respect and recognition of private property" a an important philosophical factor to enable economic growth. As of today, I have yet to hear about societies where "everything belongs to everyone" ending up being economically successful. So that might be one trait leading to success or im…

> respect and recognition of private property At some level, private property is an invention of the State. Without that, the property belongs to whoever can defend it, and whoever has the most guns wins. This becomes even more significant with the advent of intellectual property, also an invention of the State. There are many digital examples of "everything belongs to everyone" that are going extremely well, and luc…

I have a feeling that the MARKETS GOOD, GOVERNMENT BAD is along the same lines as ELEPHANTS GOOD, ICEBERGS BAD in that the two are only correlated by public opinion.

I also feel that the difference between communism and democracy is that in one I'm given a dollar, and in the other I'm given a vote. Do I use the dollar to buy the vote or vice versa?

Post reply on HN