1 out of every 153 American workers is an Amazon employee

I don't know that bookstorez are dying, in the US. Amazon killed Borders, sure, and Barnes and Noble isn't as focused on books anymore. But independent bookstores have been doing okay afaict, though having to make changes.

Here's data from the American Booksellers Association: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282808/number-of-indepen...

It's possible that the bookstores are increasingly in big cities or something, but I don't think that's Amazon's fault.

A lot of this is just about certain commerce moving online, and books competing against more and more forms of content. Amazon can provide low prices, but does terrible at spontaneity or getting me to read something totally new to me.

> There is nothing structural or inevitable about Amazon's success (compare them with the large Chinese retailers, they actually look quite blundering and incompetent, they have made mistakes in distribution already that are going to choke them).

Could you elaborate?

What mistakes did they do in distribution?

I am just seeing them out-compete everyone. With their own dedicated shipping they can grab that essential percentage point of margins that makes them either rich or gives them the ability to be the best price in town.

Margins are the difference between what it cost, and what you earned. But what I would call "profitability" is your actual return versus capital deployed.

For example, I know a retailer that earns a 1% margin...terrible? No. They turn over their inventory every week (roughly), so they earn that 1% 56x times a year...that is a very profitable business. Similarly, I can earn a 90% margin but if I can only turn my assets over every ten years (some business are like this) then that business isn't very profitable.

Retail provides massive utility. Retail is the link between producers and consumers. Most producers do not have the interest or the ability to sell direct to consumers, it is a totally different (and very expensive) business. And barriers to entry are significant: retail is complex, there are huge fixed costs, and you own the link to consumers (that is why distribution is where all the profit is within most value chains). The internet does make information easier but retailers also do that job, Amazon doesn't but product selection a competitive advantage (most consumers trust retailers more than they trust brands...Amazon's return policy is a prime example, retailers need trust). And there is a difference between providing information and distribution: if that wasn't true Consumer Reports would be the biggest retailer in the world (I actually agree with this a huge amount though, this has never made sense to me...but trust is complex, humans aren't totally logical, and the system we have is pretty good).

I am not clear what your point is. But one, small proportions are fine, Ferrari doesn't sell to everyone and they do okay. Restoration Hardware is a more modern example. Two, your point about those stores is my point about why distribution is profitable. Three, and the point I made earlier is that most of those stores (but not all) have essentially become derivative of each other...and that is why physical retail isn't competitive. Most physical retailers essentially threw up their hands, and decided to compete on price alone which suited online retailers very well (as I said though, this happened when retailers took more control over supply chains and started sourcing directly from factories in China, and this largely started before Amazon existed but accelerated hugely in the 2000s).

I can consolidate these points by mentioning Restoration Hardware again: no-one knew they needed Restoration Hardware before Restoration Hardware existed, their model is ludicrous, it makes no sense...but it is also very successful and gives consumers something they cannot get online. If you asked consumers what they want before cars were invented, they will tell you they want a better horse (btw, Trader Joe's is also the perfect example of this...they did almost everything you shouldn't do in retail, that is how they succeeded).

"Across the U.S., nearly 24 million people—a little over 15% of the workforce—are involved in military, public, and national service at the local, state and federal levels. Of this number, approximately 16 million are employed in state and local governments. The federal government numbers include active duty military personnel and U.S. Postal Service workers. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million active duty service members and another 800,000 reserve forces. There are approximately 800,000 postal workers. Beyond the military and the postal service, 2 million people—just over 1% of the U.S. workforce or 0.6% of the total population—are permanently employed by the federal government. More than 70% of the federal workforce serves in defense and security agencies like the Department of Defense, the intelligence community agencies, and NASA.

Contrary to popular belief in the bloated growth of the U.S. public sector, the size of the federal government proportionate to the total U.S. population has significantly decreased over the last 50 years. It has also shrunk in absolute numbers in terms of both the full-time and part-time workforce. If we compare the size of the U.S. public sector as a percentage of the total workforce with other advanced countries, the U.S. is often smaller than its European counterparts, including the United Kingdom, although larger than Japan, which has one of the smallest public sectors internationally. In stark contrast, 40% of the workforce in Russia is employed in the public sector. In Europe, the optimal size of government is equally hotly debated, while in Russia, the size of the government and the dependency that this generates within the workforce tends to mute critical commentary." https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/public-servi...

bloomberg had an article along similar lines late last year. The main hypothesis isn't terribly controversial to me, amazon lowers logistics wages since it pays less than the traditional players, and has sort of the 'business gravity' to immediate move in and be a significant employer. I would not call that suppressing wages on its own.

Amazon's argument is that they aren't driving wages down, they are raising them up because their employees are not from traditional logistics, but most retail and service jobs, again, on its own, probably more right than not.

That's the thing I think is hard to separate, and I want to know more about. These industries feel threatened by amazon, so where is that coming from? Is it all just business muscle and monopsony, or is there genuine disruption (even in something that relies on amazon's scale)? Sort of a competitively 'legitimate' advantage. And I would say that you can definitely discuss if they are externalizing societal costs with how they treat employees.

It's not a direct comparison, but I think about the crafts that were overtaken by factories. I think it can't be that simple, but amazon clearly changed the labor dynamics, so what did it do and how did it do it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-12-17/amazon-am...