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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 149 posts

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

#41

Post by mjevans »

jorblumesea wrote: post #4

If you're making 30k / year, having any kind of equity in lieu of traditional compensation (bonuses, wage increases) is an extremely risky affair. Amazon's stock has increased x6, but that is not normal, nor is it indicative of future performance. For those living paycheck to paycheck, there are far better methods of compensation that will ensure a higher quality of life without huge amounts of risk. An increase of j…

It would be really nice if EVERYONE not in the 1% got a raise of some sort. An extra 1-2 an hour or whatever...

However then the prices of everything would go up for everyone, just like they are everywhere.

When the 'living wage' 15 USD/whatever minimums are passed don't the prices of everyday living just rise to meet that extra cash in the market?

Meanwhile everyone who was previously making a little above minimum wage, mostly the (lower/mid) middle class, get shafted, because they do not get raises.

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

#43

Post by thisisit »

whoisjuan wrote: post #14

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…

> It's a problem of business viability and long-term expectations.

Agreed.

But then I am surprised about the whole Wall Street para. People don't like surprises. So a company has to always set expectations correctly, to both employees as well as the markets. If a company is open how the initiative is going to affect revenues there wont be that huge loss of market value.

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

#44

Post by jshorty »

josephagoss wrote: post #37
arentiright wrote: post #24

Why does NYT have it out for Amazon? Is it because Mr Bezos owns a rival paper?

I've noticed that the NYT has it out for anything remotely related to capitalism. Didn't they put out a article a while back about how Jeff Bezos becoming so rich is terrible, and they purposely neglected to mention the millions of Americans that also gained in wealth due to Jeff's actions. These days the NYT is doing some very biased reporting.

The editor of the NYT editorial page recently explicitly stated the goal of defending capitalism: https://fair.org/home/top-nyt-editor-we-are-pro-capitalism-t...

If you read the NYT it is at the very least staunchly moderate on capitalism, if not (in my opinion) a doggedly fierce advocate for it, especially at a time when much of its readership is pushing to the economic left.

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

#45

Post by camdenlock »

josephagoss wrote: post #37
arentiright wrote: post #24

Why does NYT have it out for Amazon? Is it because Mr Bezos owns a rival paper?

I've noticed that the NYT has it out for anything remotely related to capitalism. Didn't they put out a article a while back about how Jeff Bezos becoming so rich is terrible, and they purposely neglected to mention the millions of Americans that also gained in wealth due to Jeff's actions. These days the NYT is doing some very biased reporting.

This would align with some of their other recent questionable moves, like the hiring (and defense) of a ridiculously racist editor.

These moves kind of smell of ideological possession to me.

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

#46

Post by forapurpose »

steve19 wrote: post #19
paulpauper wrote: post #17

Yeah I remember Bernie Sanders praised Amazon's decision in a tweet, but only later did people and the media realize that increasing the minimum wage came at a cost to other things, such as stock compensation. no free lunch guys.

Amazon realized that they kept getting a black eye because of their wages so of course they pivoted. Now some workers are probably worse off. I blame the media for only caring about sensationalist headlines.

> I blame the media

Amazon isn't responsible for its own decisions?

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

#47

Post by eropple »

nradov wrote: post #40
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t necessarily disagree with many of your points, but I think drawing attention to the end of Sears’ lifecycle is an unfair thing. Someday Amazon too will have an end of life, and employees and shareholders will get fucked over then too. The article also draws attention to how workers benefited _in good times_ at Sears, not near the end. And this is where the comparison is most meaningful, where Amazon is more q…

The difference is that most Amazon employees have defined contribution retirement plans rather than defined benefit pensions. So Amazon is less likely to end up in a death spiral due to unsustainable expenses. And if Amazon does go bankrupt the employees' retirement funds won't be impacted (unless they invested in company stock).

Most Amazon employees don't make enough money to meaningfully contribute to those retirement plans, though.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

chimpburger wrote: post #34
pm90 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What nonsense. Many thousands of workers will be compensated much better. Other retailers will have to increase their wages. This is a good outcome.

Did you even read the article? Many thousands of workers will be compensated less. The higher wages came at the cost of no more free stocks.

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by s_trumpet »

refurb wrote: post #35

Why does the article keep comparing warehouse workers at Amazon with salespeople at Sears? Those don't seem like comparable positions (sales comp is often very performance based) and thus, compensation wouldn't be the same. Maybe compare the salespeople at Sears with account managers or some similar position at Amazon?

> “Most of these people retired with a good pension,” said Jon White, who worked at Sears for 38 years, most recently as a manager in a store in Lithonia, Ga., before retiring in 2008. “Most of them are comfortable for the most part — cashiers, clerks, replenishers, all kinds of workers.”

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

#50

Post by tomcam »

makotech222 wrote: post #18
whoisjuan wrote: post #14

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…

[flagged]

Question without an agenda here, honest: what would you replace it with?
Post reply on HN