Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#251

Post by mft_ » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

dnadler wrote: post #241

mft_ wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This what interests me (genuinely - I'm not just trolling here!) If an employer has need for employees to perform a specific type of manual physical work --be it 'picking' for Amazon, or building houses, or working in agriculture, or whatever-- and they pay market rates, and adhere to health-and-safety laws... what other reasonable working conditions must be met? For example, it's difficult to build houses without ex…

> ...and adhere to health-and-safety laws... Aside from wages, it sounds like you agree with the sentiment of 'minimum working conditions', just perhaps disagree on the specifics of what that means.

I don't disagree - I really don't know what standard Amazon (in fact, all employers) are being held to here.

And I see a major challenge (logical and practical) for employers whose business requires employees to perform tasks that others find unacceptable, or "inhumane", but which are legal according to H&S standards.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#252

Post by mikeash » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

_1 wrote: post #250

mikeash wrote: post #245

I wonder if this means I’ll stop receiving boxes the size of a small house containing a single small item, or if it’ll be even worse.

That's usually due to delivery/packing requirements, not a human unable to find the smallest possible box.

Can you elaborate? I routinely get smaller boxes, but I also routinely get boxes that are comically oversized and contain an item that would easily fit in one of the smaller sizes. What requirements are making that happen?

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#253

Post by sim_card_map » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #187

driverdan wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI supporters always seem to forget that the money has to come from somewhere.

I'm a UBI supporter in theory. It's the practical math that always leaves me hung up. Even $600/mo/adult citizen is a seemingly prohibitive amount of money (works out to approximately the entire amount of all individual income tax payments, or about half of total receipts, including FICA). And of course, $600/mo/adult is an extremely meager existence.

If we take all the money the Netherlands spends on social security, welfare, pensions, etc, and add extra money from increased taxes (make it flat 50-60%), every single household can have a UBI of about 42 000 euros/year.

The numbers are similar for other western economies.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#254

Post by SamuelAdams » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

rytor718 wrote: post #120

atonse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly the best proposal I've seen for slowing down such automation is to add a tax on these machines. That'll make the cost-benefit equation less obvious. These machines won't pay for themselves in a year and then be practically free. They'll continue to cost a lot. This kind of tax would help slow the progress of such automation to a speed where society can better adjust. And I say this as someone who absolutely…

I was going to (very slightly) disagree, but the idea that society is slower than technology is an angle that needs to be stated out loud a lot more. We can't out pace machines and its a fair reason to tax them for the time being. That said, I don't necessarily believe "society is slow to catch up" should be a long term problem. It should be something the government mandates for x years -- so that it has a timeline t…

> It should be something the government mandates for x years -- so that it has a timeline to get its act together and build society towards the future.

Be careful what you wish for. Social Security was supposed to be temporary too, but here we are, 50 years later. As Milton Friedman put it:

> Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#255

Post by 0xffff2 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

EugeneOZ wrote: post #107

Surprised to find so many modern Luddites in comments. History lessons says that new professions will appear.

As every mutual fund prospectus will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#256

Post by mft_ » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #229

mft_ wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess (economics aside) that a wage increase is a simple concept to grasp. But I'm interested how Amazon's working conditions are "inhumane"? I've read about 'picking' jobs which require lifting, bend, and walking for many miles per shift, but this doesn't seem more inhumane than many other jobs requiring manual labour? And I've read about complaints about the rate of workplace accidents (this was highlighted in th…

https://www.mcall.com/news/watchdog/mc-allentown-amazon-comp... > During summer heat waves, Amazon arranged to have paramedics parked in ambulances outside, ready to treat any workers who dehydrated or suffered other forms of heat stress. Those who couldn't quickly cool off and return to work were sent home or taken out in stretchers and wheelchairs and transported to area hospitals. And new applicants were ready to…

Thanks - that's a great example. As a non-expert, I'm frankly amazed that such working conditions aren't already outlawed by health and safety regulations.

However, to be specific, it does seem somewhat geography- and time-dependent - i.e. it's not so much a standard condition experienced when working for Amazon, and so perhaps not an example of Amazon's warehouse job conditions being consistently "inhumane".

It is, however, an interesting example that would support that Amazon perhaps cares too little for its workers, and/or is insufficiently responsive to changing conditions in safeguarding their well-being.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#257

Post by clarkmoody » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

lukewrites wrote: post #220

I'm all for this as soon as we change the laws so companies pay payroll taxes on automation commensurate to the number of paid positions taken by the equipment. Automation is what we should be striving for, but only if workers and society see material benefits from it. ("Your labor potential can be reallocated to a position of higher need"/"You now have the opportunity to retrain" isn't a material benefit.)

This would kill the entire economy almost immediately.

How many "paid positions" does Microsoft Excel replace every day? A single for loop could replace a thousand jobs doing manual computation.

How many farm laborers are replaced by a single piece of modern equipment?

You can't "strive for" automation, while at the same time essentially locking in labor costs by taxing that automation as human labor.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#258

Post by javagram » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

bobberkarl wrote: post #235

xkjkls wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those tax breaks have specific empployment figures associated with them.

Bu there's no penalty if this target are not met.

Aren’t the tax breaks often tied directly to the number of jobs? I believe that’s how the incentive structure for Amazon’s new NoVA headquarters works for instance.

If the company doesn’t create the job, the tax break is reduced by a certain percentage per job.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#259

Post by dfilppi » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

Cool. After all Amazon's product isn't "jobs". It is customer service, and robots are better.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#260

Post by SamuelAdams » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #219

gxx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it results in the elimination of oversized boxes it should save on cardboard, also reducing shipping volume. This would be financially and environmentally be a good thing. Maybe they could also include in the box sizing algorithm the optimization of shapes for efficient packing.

Within reason, shipping weight is a bigger deal than volume.

Right but from a recycle / waste perspective, its a great thing. If manufacturers and distributors use less materials in their product packaging, that's less materials that end up in landfills. Not everyone recycles (even if the material, like cardboard, is recyclable), so the best way for Amazon to help fix waste is by reducing the raw output of cardboard.