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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 487 posts

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

#191

Post by rendang »

Fauntleroy wrote: post #165
Noble6 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon Warehouse positions all pay well above minimum wage, in every state. They also offer benefits. Concluding Amazon isn’t paying enough, because a large portion of their workforce qualifies for food stamps, is the wrong conclusion.

If you knew someone working at an Amazon Warehouse position who needed to use government benefits to get by, would you consider them "well" or even "fairly" paid?

By that logic, if we had universal health care, you could then say every single person who chooses to use it instead of buying private insurance "needs govt benefits to get by" and is therefore not well paid.

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

#192

Post by Aunche »

notatoad wrote: post #83
gruez wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It prevents competition How does food stamps/medicaid prevent competition?

because small companies can't get away with paying poverty wages. amazon jobs are ubiquitous and well-known enough that people treat it as a fallback. if you can't find a better job, you go work in the amazon warehouse or as a wal-mart cashier, because they're always hiring. companies that don't operate on the same scale aren't constantly hiring, so they can't get the same benefit of being the fallback option for peo…

Of course small businesses can always pay poverty wages or constantly hire. Amazon actually actively advocates for more than doubling the minimum wage because it would be beneficial for them.

https://www.aboutamazon.com/impact/economy/15-minimum-wage

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

#193

Post by someguydave »

cardy31 wrote: post #104
Seattle3503 wrote: post #100

A lot of comments have the assumption that it is corporations responsibility to look after people. That philosophy is how we get healthcare tied to one's employer. That approach attaches workers to their employer and makes switching jobs harder. I think it is better to see it as the government's responsibility to take care of it citizens. Medicaid, food stamps, and the negative income tax represents this approach. We…

Setting reasonable minimum wages would take care of citizens without a patchwork of programs being needed.

Banning low wage labor hurts many low wage laborers

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

#194

Post by no_wizard »

Nasrudith wrote: post #164
SaintSeiya wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bezos and execs, who earn billions of dollars in compensation on the shoulders of the working class like leeches. Reduce their compensation packages and redistribute it as wages in their baseline workers.

Do the math instead of just seeing red at large numbers. Jassy earns about 29.2 M$. Lets round it to 30M$ for the sake of convenience and assume all 17 of the board members get paid the same. Amazon has about ~1.5M employees. Which means that if the entirety of their earnings were redistributed they would get a whopping ~$340 per person. An insult for a yearly bonus and certainly not enough to get people off of food…

What if you instead capped executive compensation to a ratio, say 1:25 pegged against the lowest wage earner in the company?

e.g., you can only be compensated (meaning stock options inclusive) 25 times what your lowest paid employee is paid.

Would this naturally raise the floor at companies as executives want to increase their own compensation?

I remember an idea like this being floated 15 years ago or so and on the surface it seems sound, but the devil is always in the details.

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

#195

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

tryptophan wrote: post #180
atleastoptimal wrote: post #129

Here's the thing. This is going to happen to everyone, as in, no person will be valuable enough via the contribution of their labor to survive without subsidies. At the level of automation we've reached in society, low-skilled labor is worth, per hour, a very small amount. As AI and automation improve, the majority of people will have negligible economic utility. The only way around this is to let those people starve…

[flagged]

Yes, all the illegals will need to do is sign up with their government ID and then they - hey, wait a second.

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

#196

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #129

Here's the thing. This is going to happen to everyone, as in, no person will be valuable enough via the contribution of their labor to survive without subsidies. At the level of automation we've reached in society, low-skilled labor is worth, per hour, a very small amount. As AI and automation improve, the majority of people will have negligible economic utility. The only way around this is to let those people starve…

Yep. There will be too many people competing for too few jobs, even so-called high demand professional specialities. There are always too many lawyers, and it's not a lawyer joke.

We're going to have to reform extreme wealth inequalities and move to UBI and redistribution of wealth, or otherwise there will be a great upheaval and billions will be impoverished and living in favelas in 20 years.

Already, there are vastly undercounted millions of homeless and functionally homeless people in America, a supposed first-world countries.

To maintain a humane standard of living for all people requires recapturing trillions the ultrarich have taken for themselves.

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

#197

Post by ptsneves »

pc86 wrote: post #142
no_wizard wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government subsidizes corporate low wage work But importantly only the lowest of the low wages There is a huge swath of workers that can't get benefits like food stamps or medicaid because they don't qualify via the means testing formula and they can't really afford to live where they live, afford medical insurance etc. Its those folks that have it the worst, IMO. Cost of living keeps you from building any wealt…

This is exactly what Mitt Romney was referring to during the 2012 election when he said he wasn't worried about the very rich, and he wasn't worried about the very poor. The truth is if you are making $20k/yr in income you're likely in a better position day-to-day than someone making $40k/yr, especially if you're raising a family and especially if you live in a city with functioning social services. He was excoriated…

Compare that calibre with this year’s roster and it makes me cry. Why didn’t he run a term later?

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

#198

Post by pas »

michael9423 wrote: post #182
atleastoptimal wrote: post #129

Here's the thing. This is going to happen to everyone, as in, no person will be valuable enough via the contribution of their labor to survive without subsidies. At the level of automation we've reached in society, low-skilled labor is worth, per hour, a very small amount. As AI and automation improve, the majority of people will have negligible economic utility. The only way around this is to let those people starve…

Actually, it's the opposite. At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker. So the issue is simply in how corporations are set up and how the stock market is designed. The entire system is designed to drain as much val…

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.

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

#199

Post by tgv »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #129

Here's the thing. This is going to happen to everyone, as in, no person will be valuable enough via the contribution of their labor to survive without subsidies. At the level of automation we've reached in society, low-skilled labor is worth, per hour, a very small amount. As AI and automation improve, the majority of people will have negligible economic utility. The only way around this is to let those people starve…

> The only way around this is to let those people starve or implement UBI.

That's pertinently false.

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

#200

Post by vaidhy »

monero-xmr wrote: post #190
michael9423 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's the opposite. At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker. So the issue is simply in how corporations are set up and how the stock market is designed. The entire system is designed to drain as much val…

And I would say that developed western nations, including the USA, have done a pretty good job of providing subsidies and benefits for low skilled workers, so they can get on the lowest rung of the totem pole and contribute to society without starving. We specifically have food stamps, the EITC, welfare, child tax credit, housing vouchers, and so on specifically so they can provide valuable labor to society (and mini…

and I would assume you would agree that these benefits be expanded as needed and cover a larger population if necessary, right? In fact, it would correct if everyone gets these living expenses taken care of, right?
Post reply on HN