I Used to Write for Sports Illustrated. Now I Deliver Packages for Amazon (2018)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
I Used to Write for Sports Illustrated. Now I Deliver Packages for Amazon (2018)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/what-its-like-to-deliver-packages-for-amazon/578986/
290 comments
Someone close to me has worked at Macy's their entire career, through college, after college, through grad school, after grad school. Nearly 15 years now.
Much as you mentioned these folks not seeing the closure as a result of the Internet, but rather local competition dynamics, no matter how many stores close or odd situations happen, they believe the precise details of each narrative are what matter (i.e. the alcoholic manager) rather than the continual pattern of the store they're working at closing, every 2-3 years like clockwork
Much as you mentioned these folks not seeing the closure as a result of the Internet, but rather local competition dynamics, no matter how many stores close or odd situations happen, they believe the precise details of each narrative are what matter (i.e. the alcoholic manager) rather than the continual pattern of the store they're working at closing, every 2-3 years like clockwork
Lots of fashion stores with 50+ years of history have gone bankrupt. I guess we'll see if the likes of Primark or Zalando will still be around in 2050.
I guess it’s hard to see when you go to work every day. It’s there. It’s physical. You’re working.
Exactly, secular trends are hard to spot when you know the details. Tech people look at the alternate present where your revenue is 30% better without the internet, but that's "imaginary" in some sense, it really was the manager who put the store under
> Lurching west in stop-and-go traffic on I-80 that morning, bound for Berkeley and a day of delivering in the rain, I had a low moment, dwelling on how far I’d come down in the world. Then I snapped out of it. I haven’t come down in the world. What’s come down in the world is the business model that sustained Time Inc. for decades. I’m pretty much the same writer, the same guy. I haven’t gone anywhere. My feet are the same.
When I’m in a rhythm, and my system’s working, and I slide open the side door and the parcel I’m looking for practically jumps into my hand, and the delivery takes 35 seconds and I’m on to the next one, I enjoy this gig. I like that it’s challenging, mentally and physically. As with the athletic contests I covered for my old employer, there’s a resolution, every day. I get to the end of my route, or I don’t. I deliver all the packages, or I don’t.
Delivering packages is a fine job doing honest labor. Amazon pays well. He has a good attitude. He is doing something the modern world needs. No shame in that.
If I was down on my luck I would have no problem doing whatever job exists. I have washed dishes, and I enjoyed that job. I think a lot of people think some types of work are beneath them but I respect all people who are productive members of society - and the flip-side is that I despise people who say these jobs are so “terrible” they need to be outlawed or whatever.
When I’m in a rhythm, and my system’s working, and I slide open the side door and the parcel I’m looking for practically jumps into my hand, and the delivery takes 35 seconds and I’m on to the next one, I enjoy this gig. I like that it’s challenging, mentally and physically. As with the athletic contests I covered for my old employer, there’s a resolution, every day. I get to the end of my route, or I don’t. I deliver all the packages, or I don’t.
Delivering packages is a fine job doing honest labor. Amazon pays well. He has a good attitude. He is doing something the modern world needs. No shame in that.
If I was down on my luck I would have no problem doing whatever job exists. I have washed dishes, and I enjoyed that job. I think a lot of people think some types of work are beneath them but I respect all people who are productive members of society - and the flip-side is that I despise people who say these jobs are so “terrible” they need to be outlawed or whatever.
Yeah - I liked that part of his essay too, I also just generally liked his writing.
There’s something satisfying in this kind of work with clear explicit goals and getting through the list everyday.
I think a lot of society issues seem to stem from how he briefly felt, that this kind of thing was a sign of failure or that he was embarrassed to tell friends at the holiday party.
The irony to me is that this kind of work is probably more valuable to society than sports illustrated and day to day almost certainly so.
If there was more cultural respect for these kinds of jobs, people would feel better about themselves while doing them. I think there should be. I was glad he felt good about it at the end.
There’s something satisfying in this kind of work with clear explicit goals and getting through the list everyday.
I think a lot of society issues seem to stem from how he briefly felt, that this kind of thing was a sign of failure or that he was embarrassed to tell friends at the holiday party.
The irony to me is that this kind of work is probably more valuable to society than sports illustrated and day to day almost certainly so.
If there was more cultural respect for these kinds of jobs, people would feel better about themselves while doing them. I think there should be. I was glad he felt good about it at the end.
> There’s something satisfying in this kind of work with clear explicit goals and getting through the list everyday.
This sums up my mid career crisis. I miss the jobs of my youth where I was just scheduled, showed up, did tasks, and left when scheduled. Of course, a flaw of memories like this is I mainly remember the good parts. When I really try, I remember things like lack of flexibility (working from home, leaving early to meet the plumber/doctor, etc) and honestly how difficult living on a low wage actually was and that was before all the responsibilities I’ve accumulated (family, homes, etc).
Also, I always found these jobs truly fun. The carefreeness of other employees and they types of characters you came across was eclectic and interesting. Corporate America does not allow of much of that and is fairly homogeneous even when diversified.
This sums up my mid career crisis. I miss the jobs of my youth where I was just scheduled, showed up, did tasks, and left when scheduled. Of course, a flaw of memories like this is I mainly remember the good parts. When I really try, I remember things like lack of flexibility (working from home, leaving early to meet the plumber/doctor, etc) and honestly how difficult living on a low wage actually was and that was before all the responsibilities I’ve accumulated (family, homes, etc).
Also, I always found these jobs truly fun. The carefreeness of other employees and they types of characters you came across was eclectic and interesting. Corporate America does not allow of much of that and is fairly homogeneous even when diversified.
I laughed at your phrase "even when diversified".
They promote all forms of diversity except diversity of thought. You'll get a far more interesting range of views from a small team of people delivering pizzas than you will from people working at Google.
There would probably be more respect even if nothing else changed except they paid more.
I doubt it.
Both because Amazon pay is decent, but more so because it’s more about class expectations than it is about pay.
Lots of jobs make a lot of money, but are still not considered high status.
Both because Amazon pay is decent, but more so because it’s more about class expectations than it is about pay.
Lots of jobs make a lot of money, but are still not considered high status.
Jobs like what?
The only ones I can think of are ones which suddenly started paying a lot due to some market quirk (e.g. miners in Australia in the 2010s).
Class expectations just take a while to catch up (or never do if the market quirk doesn't persist).
The only ones I can think of are ones which suddenly started paying a lot due to some market quirk (e.g. miners in Australia in the 2010s).
Class expectations just take a while to catch up (or never do if the market quirk doesn't persist).
Plumbing and electrician are the first two that come to mind.
Construction would probably be another.
Basically “blue collar” jobs that require a lot of expertise.
I’d guess some variation and small business risk, but I think many do well.
Construction would probably be another.
Basically “blue collar” jobs that require a lot of expertise.
I’d guess some variation and small business risk, but I think many do well.
The reason those don't command respect is because they don't pay well in the main.
Oil industry workers don’t seem to carry much clout, kind of a dirty job with a lot of physical labor, but pays quite well and has for a while.
Truckers can still make an upper middle class salary, especially if they own their truck or focus on a niche (refrigerated, military deliveries, cross border, etc.)
Truckers can still make an upper middle class salary, especially if they own their truck or focus on a niche (refrigerated, military deliveries, cross border, etc.)
I was actually thinking of underwater welders when I wrote that. Not all oil industry jobs pay well but that one really can, and it carries the cachet to boot. It's definitely manual labor royalty - dangerous, highly skilled and pays up to $300k.
Truckers are not doing so well these days, and where they do make a lot it's typically because of backbreaking labor and/or taking on financial risks. This still only gets you into lower/mid tier software dev wages.
Truckers are not doing so well these days, and where they do make a lot it's typically because of backbreaking labor and/or taking on financial risks. This still only gets you into lower/mid tier software dev wages.
>Truckers are not doing so well these days
I thought there was a trucker shortage happening?
I thought there was a trucker shortage happening?
There's always a labor shortage of some kind if you're the one paying the wages.
In truckers' cases it must be a shortage of experienced truckers willing to partake in backbreaking labor and take financial and health risks for $60k / year.
In truckers' cases it must be a shortage of experienced truckers willing to partake in backbreaking labor and take financial and health risks for $60k / year.
"I was actually thinking of underwater welders when I wrote that. Not all oil industry jobs pay well but that one really can, and it carries the cachet to boot. It's definitely manual labor royalty - dangerous, highly skilled and pays up to $300k."
A lot of the "well paying", low-status jobs mentioned in this thread are dangrous... long-haul truckers, construction workers, underwater welders, even electricians are jobs where you have to risk your life to do them, and many of them are statistically dangerous as well.
So whether the people who have such jobs are "well compensated" for risking their lives like that is debatable.
Certainly an IT manager job that paid the same as a trucker would be far more preferable in terms of safety, and would therefore be far better compensated when the danger of being a trucker is taken in to account.
Of course, low-paid delivery jobs are even worse when you consider that those low-paid delivery drivers have to risk their lives on the road to deliver your packages.
A lot of the "well paying", low-status jobs mentioned in this thread are dangrous... long-haul truckers, construction workers, underwater welders, even electricians are jobs where you have to risk your life to do them, and many of them are statistically dangerous as well.
So whether the people who have such jobs are "well compensated" for risking their lives like that is debatable.
Certainly an IT manager job that paid the same as a trucker would be far more preferable in terms of safety, and would therefore be far better compensated when the danger of being a trucker is taken in to account.
Of course, low-paid delivery jobs are even worse when you consider that those low-paid delivery drivers have to risk their lives on the road to deliver your packages.
> “ and would therefore be far better compensated when the danger of being a trucker is taken in to account.”
This strikes me as just making up reasons why examples that disprove the status/pay point aren’t really disproving it.
If you can just make up reasons why your position is right anyway even in cases where it’s not, then it’s basically unfalsifiable.
This strikes me as just making up reasons why examples that disprove the status/pay point aren’t really disproving it.
If you can just make up reasons why your position is right anyway even in cases where it’s not, then it’s basically unfalsifiable.
In Canada at least, any contractor/constructing job.
Plumbers, electricians are educated specialists making very very good hourly wage but won't get same status as say IT manager.
Bonded cleaner with great references can easily be 50 bucks an hour.
Truck drivers, forklift operators have steadily been well compensated and need certified skillset but again don't get same perceived class status.
Note I'm not saying I don't / these jobs shouldn't have respect :). Question was which well paid jobs are seen as different conferring class status despite good pay and this is the general perception I've observed.
Plumbers, electricians are educated specialists making very very good hourly wage but won't get same status as say IT manager.
Bonded cleaner with great references can easily be 50 bucks an hour.
Truck drivers, forklift operators have steadily been well compensated and need certified skillset but again don't get same perceived class status.
Note I'm not saying I don't / these jobs shouldn't have respect :). Question was which well paid jobs are seen as different conferring class status despite good pay and this is the general perception I've observed.
https://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Industry=Construction/S...
Average is 66k CAD / year, apparently.
That's not amazing. Construction is also notorious for ruining your body (health problems / early retirement a necessity) so it's not even as good as a 66k CAD office wage.
Average is 66k CAD / year, apparently.
That's not amazing. Construction is also notorious for ruining your body (health problems / early retirement a necessity) so it's not even as good as a 66k CAD office wage.
Software jobs are low status.
We live in a bubble and respect good hackers but normies don't like nerds.
Hollywood portrays us between weirdo and pervert, while glorifying lawyers and doctors.
We live in a bubble and respect good hackers but normies don't like nerds.
Hollywood portrays us between weirdo and pervert, while glorifying lawyers and doctors.
That has a lot more to do with personality than career. If you’re an irritating know-it-all weirdo, people aren’t going to like you regardless of your job. I’ve known engineers like that that, but most people I know and work with are normal people and are respected.
That victim blaming just plain doesn't line up with reality. Outright assholes are downright lionized. Perfectly upright people are looked down upon for "weird" fields or ones which make them feel insecure or inadequate.
> irritating know-it-all
Sounds like lawyers and doctors (or plenty of people really).
> weirdo
That is a bit of a stereotype. I suspect a large percentage of software jobs are filled by standard people. The weirdos do stand out, but I don’t know anyone who actually fits the Hollywood stereotype.
And weirdo be replaced by equally socially unacceptable traits (arrogant or closed-minded etcetera) that apply to doctors and lawyers.
Sounds like lawyers and doctors (or plenty of people really).
> weirdo
That is a bit of a stereotype. I suspect a large percentage of software jobs are filled by standard people. The weirdos do stand out, but I don’t know anyone who actually fits the Hollywood stereotype.
And weirdo be replaced by equally socially unacceptable traits (arrogant or closed-minded etcetera) that apply to doctors and lawyers.
Not really.
If you work in software people think it’s cool.
It maybe was low status 20 years ago, but since 2010 or so it’s changed.
Even in NYC the finance people prefer to talk about their app ideas rather than admit they work at a bank.
Compare that to someone who drives for Amazon - the cultural status is not the same.
If you work in software people think it’s cool.
It maybe was low status 20 years ago, but since 2010 or so it’s changed.
Even in NYC the finance people prefer to talk about their app ideas rather than admit they work at a bank.
Compare that to someone who drives for Amazon - the cultural status is not the same.
This can’t be overstated. Dignity means having the financial stability required to comfortably live in a decent neighborhood, get married, and raise a family.
I felt bad for him in the moment when he talked about being judged for being a senior and doing a "menial" job. Being a delivery driver is certainly not a high status job but I think it's a reminder not to allow ourselves to look down on any particular role in society. We need all these types of work for the gears to keep turning.
"We need all these types of work for the gears to keep turning."
Ok, we can all agree that until a high level of automation is achieved, such jobs are necessary.
But how many of the people defending the need for such jobs would actually want to do them?
Usually they're happy to let other people do them, but would balk at doing them themselves.
This is especially true for "dirty" or "unsavory" jobs such as garbageperson, exterminator, food processing / slaughterhouse worker, etc.
People are usually happy to hire such people or consume their products, and talk about how essential they are, but would never want to be one themselves.
On top of that, they'd usually look down on people with these jobs and never dream of associating with them or inviting them to their parties.
Ok, we can all agree that until a high level of automation is achieved, such jobs are necessary.
But how many of the people defending the need for such jobs would actually want to do them?
Usually they're happy to let other people do them, but would balk at doing them themselves.
This is especially true for "dirty" or "unsavory" jobs such as garbageperson, exterminator, food processing / slaughterhouse worker, etc.
People are usually happy to hire such people or consume their products, and talk about how essential they are, but would never want to be one themselves.
On top of that, they'd usually look down on people with these jobs and never dream of associating with them or inviting them to their parties.
A professor friend of mine told me once that one of the secretaries was lamenting that "even garbagemen get paid more than I." Curmudgeon that he was, he suggested that she quit and become a garbageman. She replied in an offended tone "no way would I do a filthy, disgusting job like that."
QED
QED
When I worked at a grocery store I reflected on how the cleaner who came every night was one of the more important workers we had.
After all, who'd want to shop groceries at a dirty place when there's a nice, clean place just a bit down the road?
After all, who'd want to shop groceries at a dirty place when there's a nice, clean place just a bit down the road?
It's not an issue of "looking down" though. We absolutely need these jobs (some of them anyway, we don't really need restaurants for example). That's all the more reason to ensure that they are sustainable. We need rules so that people are paid well, working in safe conditions, not being overworked, etc. As a society we need to ensure that people doing vital stuff like delivery are protected and taken care of, for our sake as well as theirs. Post-Covid, Amazon has essentially become a core part of US infrastructure, as much or moreso than the USPS.
And of course, all of this is even more important for the reason the article highlights: These are the jobs people end up in now. In a country with a vanishing middle class and terrible social safety nets for seniors, increasingly large numbers of people end up here. Not just criminals, those who aren't especially bright or those who are a bit unlucky, but good, capable ordinary people have nowhere else to go now. If we're all going to be living here now, we need to start cleaning the place up.
And of course, all of this is even more important for the reason the article highlights: These are the jobs people end up in now. In a country with a vanishing middle class and terrible social safety nets for seniors, increasingly large numbers of people end up here. Not just criminals, those who aren't especially bright or those who are a bit unlucky, but good, capable ordinary people have nowhere else to go now. If we're all going to be living here now, we need to start cleaning the place up.
Every argument against Amazon-the-employer I have read recently seems to pretend that the people who work there have no choice but to work for Amazon, as if they didn't pick the job for themselves out of the array of possible options available to them.
I have a lot of issues with the way Amazon operates, but precisely nobody is forced to work there. This article does a good job of pointing that out.
I have a lot of issues with the way Amazon operates, but precisely nobody is forced to work there. This article does a good job of pointing that out.
And for all the shrieking about Amazon destroying "mom and pop" shops these people never admit that Amazon pays their employees much more, often 2x what the mom and pop's did.
Or did you really think mom and pop were paying the teens running their bookstore $17/hr? You think they had great health insurance and other benefits?
Or did you really think mom and pop were paying the teens running their bookstore $17/hr? You think they had great health insurance and other benefits?
I personally think it's ridiculous that people find it amazing that 15 an hour is considered amazing pay for anyone that isn't a teenager working their first job, but Amazon gets high praise for doing it. Most people on here would laugh at a job that pays 600 a week, 2400 a month or 28800 a year before taxes.
15 is there minimum though. Meaning any teenager with a driver's license is getting 15. This guy (a grownup with no delivery experience) was getting 17 plus overtime.
No one is here saying it's "amazing"
I am here saying that, yes that paltry $15 an hour you scold Amazon for paying? Well mom and pop they drove out of business was paying about HALF of that.
I am here saying that, yes that paltry $15 an hour you scold Amazon for paying? Well mom and pop they drove out of business was paying about HALF of that.
People get forced to work in jobs they don't want to all of the time.
The array of possible jobs could be one or none.
If a basic income existed your point could be true. That's not reality today.
The array of possible jobs could be one or none.
If a basic income existed your point could be true. That's not reality today.
The array of possible unskilled jobs in almost every populated place is almost always >1.
It turns out that Amazon actually competes for labor in a vast market for same. So many people work there because they have to be a better option than most unskilled labor jobs because they have so many packages to deliver.
It turns out that Amazon actually competes for labor in a vast market for same. So many people work there because they have to be a better option than most unskilled labor jobs because they have so many packages to deliver.
I’d you don’t have a lot of financial resources, and work a low paid job, you also tend not to have the time resources to explore the option. It comes at a high transaction cost.
My experience with wage workers that are struggling to make ends meet is different. They spend a lot of time looking for better jobs and side gigs. Like, it is their primary focus.
My unwanted opinion on that is their "lot of time" would be better invested in upgrading their skills so they can get a higher paying job.
I believe that in the USA you would have a much harder time finding an able-bodied person who cannot find an available job vs. someone with multiple options. My news this week is full of stories of employers who cannot find enough labor. We are very far away from a jobs crisis.
> My news this week is full of stories of employers who cannot find enough labor.
Yeah, they can't find enough labor because they want to pay people $15 an hour in an area where the median home price is $572,000. I work in logistics. I occasionally overhear some of executive staff down the hall from my office complain about being unable to keep workers in a non-climate controlled warehouse, lifting enormously heavy things, for 8 hours a day, in one of the richest areas of Texas that isn't Houston or Dallas.
Gee, I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to work in a warehouse in 100 degree F weather, lifting 30-80 lbs. boxes for 8 hours.
So I pulled data on that warehouse and it's location. In-N-Out is hiring just 10 miles away for $16 an hour. Yeah, it's not a great job either, but it's air conditioned. And you won't be lifting anything heavier than a box of fries. Furthermore, the cheapest rent within a 10 mile radius of that warehouse is $1700. Good luck paying that on $15 an hour.
So yeah, I can understand why employers can't find workers...
Yeah, they can't find enough labor because they want to pay people $15 an hour in an area where the median home price is $572,000. I work in logistics. I occasionally overhear some of executive staff down the hall from my office complain about being unable to keep workers in a non-climate controlled warehouse, lifting enormously heavy things, for 8 hours a day, in one of the richest areas of Texas that isn't Houston or Dallas.
Gee, I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to work in a warehouse in 100 degree F weather, lifting 30-80 lbs. boxes for 8 hours.
So I pulled data on that warehouse and it's location. In-N-Out is hiring just 10 miles away for $16 an hour. Yeah, it's not a great job either, but it's air conditioned. And you won't be lifting anything heavier than a box of fries. Furthermore, the cheapest rent within a 10 mile radius of that warehouse is $1700. Good luck paying that on $15 an hour.
So yeah, I can understand why employers can't find workers...
The market is always a negotiation between buyers and sellers, naturally.
I have for years always gotten emails from recruiters trying to hire me as an FTE for SWE jobs in nothing towns in flyover states at 6x less than what I charge, too. Those positions are similarly unfilled.
People pick their best options available, usually.
If they can't find/keep labor for $15/hour, that means the price for labor in their market is greater than $15/hour. That's a good thing, as that's not true most places on this planet.
I have for years always gotten emails from recruiters trying to hire me as an FTE for SWE jobs in nothing towns in flyover states at 6x less than what I charge, too. Those positions are similarly unfilled.
People pick their best options available, usually.
If they can't find/keep labor for $15/hour, that means the price for labor in their market is greater than $15/hour. That's a good thing, as that's not true most places on this planet.
Surely it makes no sense to compare the median home price to the lowest paying jobs? We don’t really expect people who earn the least to be buying the median house. (And it’s silly to think that 100% home ownership is some kind of ideal, it has a lot of negative consequences so we’re better off with many people renting).
This claim would be stronger if you compared to the bottom 10% of housing, say.
This claim would be stronger if you compared to the bottom 10% of housing, say.
Not sure what the housing market is where you live, but you can't get a house here, unless you make an offer 35% over asking and have cash on hand. Could you get a house for < million? Perhaps but it'll be "a fixer upper" to put it humorously. You're more likely looking at a trailer, and those have 5 year waiting period.
You understand that this is very unusual right? I mean, mere seconds of googling can show you that the average house price in the U.S. is about 270K, not 570K, and the average purchase price is not 35% over-asking unless there is a sudden epidemic of people under-asking and misvaluing their own homes.
> where the median home price is $572,000
Where did all the money come from in last 1 year to inflate the prices to this insanity.
So asset inflation is eventually going to make impact on labor prices and cause inflation. Then is why FED so cocksure that inflation is no big deal.
>So yeah, I can understand why employers can't find workers...
I don't understand why employers cant simply pay more and pass on the costs to their consumers. What's stoping them.
Where did all the money come from in last 1 year to inflate the prices to this insanity.
So asset inflation is eventually going to make impact on labor prices and cause inflation. Then is why FED so cocksure that inflation is no big deal.
>So yeah, I can understand why employers can't find workers...
I don't understand why employers cant simply pay more and pass on the costs to their consumers. What's stoping them.
> Where did all the money come from in last 1 year to inflate the prices to this insanity.
We've been printing trillions over the past 15 years or so. And we've disproportionately accumulated it at the top (including the audience here, although the top 1% and 0.1% are doing even better than that). That money has to go somewhere. Traditional conservative investments have low rates of return right now - think low interest rates - and housing has historically been seen as "safe". And it's providing fantastic returns.
Take COVID - nobody wants to move, so housing supply is low. Tight supply is just exacerbating an existing issue, especially sharply over the past year.
Totally anecdotal: I just moved from SF to Seattle, somewhat related to my job. We were outbid half a dozen times, often by cash offers. I remember one of them in particular, because we got beat way over asking by a cash buyer, and it was rented on Zillow the week after closing. Housing is an asset class, not a place we live.
> I don't understand why employers cant simply pay more and pass on the costs to their consumers. What's stoping them.
Passing costs onto consumers is a bit of a lie used to scare consumers into opposing wage increases. You can only pass on so much cost, and it depends in part on the elasticity of demand for your product.
Anyhow, employers generally can pay more, but they are optimizing for their shareholders and return on equity. That's going pretty well if you look at the market. But that's why the market isn't reflective of the economy as a whole.
We've been printing trillions over the past 15 years or so. And we've disproportionately accumulated it at the top (including the audience here, although the top 1% and 0.1% are doing even better than that). That money has to go somewhere. Traditional conservative investments have low rates of return right now - think low interest rates - and housing has historically been seen as "safe". And it's providing fantastic returns.
Take COVID - nobody wants to move, so housing supply is low. Tight supply is just exacerbating an existing issue, especially sharply over the past year.
Totally anecdotal: I just moved from SF to Seattle, somewhat related to my job. We were outbid half a dozen times, often by cash offers. I remember one of them in particular, because we got beat way over asking by a cash buyer, and it was rented on Zillow the week after closing. Housing is an asset class, not a place we live.
> I don't understand why employers cant simply pay more and pass on the costs to their consumers. What's stoping them.
Passing costs onto consumers is a bit of a lie used to scare consumers into opposing wage increases. You can only pass on so much cost, and it depends in part on the elasticity of demand for your product.
Anyhow, employers generally can pay more, but they are optimizing for their shareholders and return on equity. That's going pretty well if you look at the market. But that's why the market isn't reflective of the economy as a whole.
100% this. Quantitative easing basically caused epic asset inflation- great for the capital owning class, but royally fucking over the poors and young workers.
In Seattle back in the day a teacher could own a house in the city and pay it off without a sweat. Nowadays, unless you are a doctor or software engineer or patent lawyer it's kind of ludicrous idea.
In Seattle back in the day a teacher could own a house in the city and pay it off without a sweat. Nowadays, unless you are a doctor or software engineer or patent lawyer it's kind of ludicrous idea.
"Take COVID - nobody wants to move, so housing supply is low."
I was under the impression that lots of people wanted to move out of the cities both because the high population of cities made living in them much riskier than living in more rural/suburban areas in terms of infection risk for COVID, and because with the economy hurting from COVID-related lockdowns living in cities (especially expensive ones like SF) was much less affordable.
I was under the impression that lots of people wanted to move out of the cities both because the high population of cities made living in them much riskier than living in more rural/suburban areas in terms of infection risk for COVID, and because with the economy hurting from COVID-related lockdowns living in cities (especially expensive ones like SF) was much less affordable.
Maybe, but I suspect those are mostly renters moving out. SF single family housing supply was also fairly tight - didn’t seem like that was who was leaving. We were renters so it wasn’t too hard to bail.
> > where the median home price is $572,000
> Where did all the money come from in last 1 year to inflate the prices to this insanity.
This area of Texas is not well-known to most people. It's a bit of a well-kept secret. While Austin is new money and trendy, and Dallas is cosmopolitan, this area of Texas is old... old money.
> I don't understand why employers cant simply pay more and pass on the costs to their consumers. What's stoping them.
Our company not only has two nationwide competitors, we have significant regional competitors across America, and on top of that, we're having to fight Amazon as well.
I get CC'ed and BCC'ed on most shifts in company policies because it can directly affect logistics and I need to be able to actively work around or with these policies, and things are getting so crazy that Directors of Operations at each warehouse are being tasked with asking low-level warehouse employees to clock out 15 minutes early each day just to avoid any possibility of overtime.
Obviously this creates logistics problems because when a warehouse fills up, you can't send any more stock from suppliers there. So I've had to fold COVID-19 absentee reports into our data analysis, because the loss of productivity from workers can directly affect storage space. For instance, one warehouse currently has three people out with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, but we contact traced another seven people between those three, so that's 10 workers out, 3 of which for at least a few weeks, possibly months. The other 7 until they're cleared by medical doctors. That could mean roughly a 30% reduction in ability to process merchandise at that location for up to a week or two, and around an 8% decline for several weeks or months.
So we can't pass the cost on to consumers because why would you buy a headlamp assembly for your Audi A6 from us for $479 when you can get it from Amazon for $382?
> Where did all the money come from in last 1 year to inflate the prices to this insanity.
This area of Texas is not well-known to most people. It's a bit of a well-kept secret. While Austin is new money and trendy, and Dallas is cosmopolitan, this area of Texas is old... old money.
> I don't understand why employers cant simply pay more and pass on the costs to their consumers. What's stoping them.
Our company not only has two nationwide competitors, we have significant regional competitors across America, and on top of that, we're having to fight Amazon as well.
I get CC'ed and BCC'ed on most shifts in company policies because it can directly affect logistics and I need to be able to actively work around or with these policies, and things are getting so crazy that Directors of Operations at each warehouse are being tasked with asking low-level warehouse employees to clock out 15 minutes early each day just to avoid any possibility of overtime.
Obviously this creates logistics problems because when a warehouse fills up, you can't send any more stock from suppliers there. So I've had to fold COVID-19 absentee reports into our data analysis, because the loss of productivity from workers can directly affect storage space. For instance, one warehouse currently has three people out with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, but we contact traced another seven people between those three, so that's 10 workers out, 3 of which for at least a few weeks, possibly months. The other 7 until they're cleared by medical doctors. That could mean roughly a 30% reduction in ability to process merchandise at that location for up to a week or two, and around an 8% decline for several weeks or months.
So we can't pass the cost on to consumers because why would you buy a headlamp assembly for your Audi A6 from us for $479 when you can get it from Amazon for $382?
I think the question "why employers cant simply pay more and pass on the costs to their consumers" was rhetorical. Of course most employers cannot do this because their competitors will undercut them. They can only do it for costs that are imposed on all players, like government mandated minimum wage.
[deleted]
And I would bet you a week's pay the "job creators" who are complaining they can't find people willing to work for peanuts doing backbreaking miserable labor are the first to claim "we're full, no more immigrants!" to the US when there are plenty of folks in neighboring countries willing to work these jobs and pay taxes...
> are the first to claim "we're full, no more immigrants!"
You are wrong. businesses are primary drivers of illegal immigration into the country they want more immigrants not less.
You are wrong. businesses are primary drivers of illegal immigration into the country they want more immigrants not less.
They want more immigrants, and yet they support Republicans which massively slashed legal immigration the last time they controlled the government?
You are confused by the fact that both parties SAY one thing about immigration and DO another.
This "both sides" nonsense is complete fiction.
There was a BIPARTISAN senate immigration reform bill that passed the senate in 2013. THIRTEEN Republicans voted for it and every Democrat and independent did.
It went to the house and died there because the Republican majority leader Boehner knew it would pass and refused to let it be voted on. He was beholden to the most xenophobic, bigoted Republicans in his caucus and thought they would vote him out of leadership if he let it pass. He ended up losing his job anyways shortly thereafter for other reasons.
Now the entire Republican party is beholden to the xenophobic bigots and I guarantee you the exact same bill wouldn't find more than 2 votes from a Republican in the senate.
So no, there is no "both sides" here. Democrats have been remarkably consistent about what an immigration compromise looks like, and even were able to pass it in the senate 7-8 years ago, only to be blown up by the Tea Party ur-Trumpists. The GOP has only moved further to the right and will never support anything close to that.
There was a BIPARTISAN senate immigration reform bill that passed the senate in 2013. THIRTEEN Republicans voted for it and every Democrat and independent did.
It went to the house and died there because the Republican majority leader Boehner knew it would pass and refused to let it be voted on. He was beholden to the most xenophobic, bigoted Republicans in his caucus and thought they would vote him out of leadership if he let it pass. He ended up losing his job anyways shortly thereafter for other reasons.
Now the entire Republican party is beholden to the xenophobic bigots and I guarantee you the exact same bill wouldn't find more than 2 votes from a Republican in the senate.
So no, there is no "both sides" here. Democrats have been remarkably consistent about what an immigration compromise looks like, and even were able to pass it in the senate 7-8 years ago, only to be blown up by the Tea Party ur-Trumpists. The GOP has only moved further to the right and will never support anything close to that.
The type of jobs GP is referring to are dependent on illegal immigrants which was not reduced under last admin.
I'm not sure how that refutes my point that there are millions of people south of the border willing to work these backbreaking jobs for low pay if only our government could come up with some sensible immigration bill.
That these same people also exploit undocumented people is a separate issue. Give them papers and you'll have no problem finding jobs!
That these same people also exploit undocumented people is a separate issue. Give them papers and you'll have no problem finding jobs!
> I'm not sure how that refutes my point
I am refuting your point that people complaining about labor shortages shouldn't be voting republican. Which doesn't make sense because these ppl want
1. low regulation, taxes and lax labor laws.
2. availability of immigrants.
GOP provides both of these. Why would they care if ppl working for them are illegal or on h2 visa.
> Give them papers and you'll have no problem finding jobs!
Trump admin increased h2 visas despite what you are claiming. We had the highest number of h2 visas allocated under Trump and Bush and lowest under Obama admin. Obama slashed these visas by half from bush era. Most of the resistance to seasonal visas comes from democrat voting unions who lobby against these visas. They lobbied obama govt to slash those visas under the guise of protecting their local union memebers.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/biden-agenc...
Check these numbers for yourself here
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY08-A...
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual...
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual...
I am refuting your point that people complaining about labor shortages shouldn't be voting republican. Which doesn't make sense because these ppl want
1. low regulation, taxes and lax labor laws.
2. availability of immigrants.
GOP provides both of these. Why would they care if ppl working for them are illegal or on h2 visa.
> Give them papers and you'll have no problem finding jobs!
Trump admin increased h2 visas despite what you are claiming. We had the highest number of h2 visas allocated under Trump and Bush and lowest under Obama admin. Obama slashed these visas by half from bush era. Most of the resistance to seasonal visas comes from democrat voting unions who lobby against these visas. They lobbied obama govt to slash those visas under the guise of protecting their local union memebers.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/biden-agenc...
Check these numbers for yourself here
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY08-A...
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual...
https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Annual...
Trump increased h2 and then banned them after Covid so he could demagogue about brown people spreading disease.
Seems an important fact that's left out here!
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/president-trump-extends-ba...
But yes your larger point that Republicans are fine with migrants they can exploit for a few years as long as they can make sure they "go back to their country" is well taken!
Seems an important fact that's left out here!
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/president-trump-extends-ba...
But yes your larger point that Republicans are fine with migrants they can exploit for a few years as long as they can make sure they "go back to their country" is well taken!
Relatively few people object to sensible immigration policies. What they object to is undocumented hoards of people flooding across the borders.
> Yeah, they can't find enough labor because they want to pay people $15 an hour in an area where the median home price is $572,000.
No, as in, can't find skilled labor for a good salary. The notion that only unskilled labor is sought after is incorrect. Good people are always hard to find. Smart people are always hard to find. But most workers are average, and it is hard to find a job that can support a half million mortgage for the worker who is average.
What is also true is that there is skilled labor in shrinking industries and that labor is not easy to transfer to other skilled industries. You can take a smart person in logistics and convert them into a highly sought after programmer with enough time and the right attitude, but if you already have a family then you can't handle the dip. Skill mismatch is a real problem, particularly given our penchant for outsourcing. But I don't see why meeting the mortgage needs of half million dollar homes should be the yardstick by which you judge a labor market.
No, as in, can't find skilled labor for a good salary. The notion that only unskilled labor is sought after is incorrect. Good people are always hard to find. Smart people are always hard to find. But most workers are average, and it is hard to find a job that can support a half million mortgage for the worker who is average.
What is also true is that there is skilled labor in shrinking industries and that labor is not easy to transfer to other skilled industries. You can take a smart person in logistics and convert them into a highly sought after programmer with enough time and the right attitude, but if you already have a family then you can't handle the dip. Skill mismatch is a real problem, particularly given our penchant for outsourcing. But I don't see why meeting the mortgage needs of half million dollar homes should be the yardstick by which you judge a labor market.
> My news this week is full of stories of employers who cannot find enough labor.
If someone said this about employment in software dev there'd be a thousand comments about how there isn't a shortage of labor, just of labor at the price point businesses want to pay.
If someone said this about employment in software dev there'd be a thousand comments about how there isn't a shortage of labor, just of labor at the price point businesses want to pay.
There's a difference though. The news stories you're reading are about employees that are offering pay that's at a similar rate as unemployment benefits.
Workers are not OK working on slave wages that these employees want to pay them.
Workers are not OK working on slave wages that these employees want to pay them.
This is true for almost all labor "shortages" when there is anything less than full employment. If you struggle to find workers at a given wage, you're not paying enough. It's not like the world is out of people.
A true labor shortage could exist without full employment with ramp up time issues with skilled labor. That also means a shortage across the whole scope not just a single employer. As in "even if you paid a million a year salary you couldn't suddenly get 100 people capable of proficently reading and writing a long dead language when there are only seventeen professors world wide who can". The issues would correct themselves eventually longer term with sustained demand and training though.
Do they mention that pay will be rising to attract more able-bodied people?
Let us know if it's still an issue after the pay increases and work condition perks increased?
What they are not raising wages? Was the article looking at justifying some political point of view?
Let us know if it's still an issue after the pay increases and work condition perks increased?
What they are not raising wages? Was the article looking at justifying some political point of view?
You can take a job that pays a penny an hour, but you can't live on a job that pays a penny an hour.
No you can’t. That would be illegal.
You can. I will glady pay you 0.01 an hour. I won't hire you as an employee but we'll sign a contract for a fix amount.
[deleted]
forced, no - but in some areas it is the only viable place to work for many (speaking of warehouse)
> Amazon pays well.
If company has huge billion dollar profits, then they don't pay well. This is pure greed and exploitation. They get great value out of their employees but they don't share it amongst them. They share just enough so they don't look too bad to an untrained eye.
If company has huge billion dollar profits, then they don't pay well. This is pure greed and exploitation. They get great value out of their employees but they don't share it amongst them. They share just enough so they don't look too bad to an untrained eye.
They share it with anyone willing to take a risk and buy a share.
Working at a job doesn't automatically give one ownership rights, any more than the mechanic who fixes your car gets a share in the proceeds when you sell it.
Many companies, however, do provide ownership rights to employees in the form of stock purchase plans and stock option plans. I don't know if Amazon provides such to warehouse workers, but I'd suspect it would be good business to do so.
Working at a job doesn't automatically give one ownership rights, any more than the mechanic who fixes your car gets a share in the proceeds when you sell it.
Many companies, however, do provide ownership rights to employees in the form of stock purchase plans and stock option plans. I don't know if Amazon provides such to warehouse workers, but I'd suspect it would be good business to do so.
Payment in salary and real shares (without dilution) is one of the ways that could work. For example if company made 1 billion profit, they could use 30% to buy stock or use their own and redistribute it to employees into their real broker accounts.
This section resonated with me too. I can learn a lot about how to have an honest yet positive appraisal of my circumstances from Austin.
I did customer service for an energy company. At the time they paid well! It wasn’t IT, but it taught me a few things. When I was able to do a stint in the hardship division for a few months, it showed me a side of society I hadn’t seen before.
I feel some Snow Crash vibe in there.
Amazon treats their workers like shit. Nearly all low-wage (and yes, Amazon is still "low-wage" given the work involved) employers do. In Amazon's case they then hire armies of corporate apologists to swarm social media and astroturf any time anyone tries to talk about the shitty way workers are treated. All of this is well established fact at this point.
I'm glad the author is doing well. But these are not good jobs. They are not stable, sustainable, safe or high paid enough. A person could have, presumably, led a pretty good life as a writer for a national magazine like SI. It would not destroy them physically. It would probably not destroy them mentally. They would not be forced to carefully regiment their bathroom breaks, or pee in bottles. They would not be forced to work in stifling hot warehouses. They would not be forced to compete with robots and automated processes and suffer when they inevitably failed to be as fast. Writing for SI is (was) a job. Working for Amazon is exploitation. If you can't see the difference, you either haven't taken the time to read about what Amazon jobs are like, or you're arguing in bad faith, possibly because Amazon is paying you to do so.
I'm glad the author is doing well. But these are not good jobs. They are not stable, sustainable, safe or high paid enough. A person could have, presumably, led a pretty good life as a writer for a national magazine like SI. It would not destroy them physically. It would probably not destroy them mentally. They would not be forced to carefully regiment their bathroom breaks, or pee in bottles. They would not be forced to work in stifling hot warehouses. They would not be forced to compete with robots and automated processes and suffer when they inevitably failed to be as fast. Writing for SI is (was) a job. Working for Amazon is exploitation. If you can't see the difference, you either haven't taken the time to read about what Amazon jobs are like, or you're arguing in bad faith, possibly because Amazon is paying you to do so.
I worked at a UPS hub before Amazon was much of a thing, and I can say that what you're describing is nothing new or specific to Amazon. Logistics companies, especially in the warehouse/sorting areas, are abjectly horrid to work for.
edit: and that was a union gig.
edit: and that was a union gig.
There's a good book on such jobs called "Nickel and Dimed"[1] by Barbara Ehrenreich, who went "undercover" and worked a bunch of such low-paid jobs.
A quote from the book:
"When someone works for less pay than she can live on ... she has made a great sacrifice for you ... The "working poor" ... are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone."
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
A quote from the book:
"When someone works for less pay than she can live on ... she has made a great sacrifice for you ... The "working poor" ... are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone."
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
For anyone curious, it seems he now has a full-time job as a journalist at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. Happy he's being paid for his words again.
https://twitter.com/ausmurph88/status/1096838031804227584
https://twitter.com/ausmurph88/status/1096838031804227584
Article linked from the submission was from December 25, 2018, and the tweet from Feb 16, 2019. Seems likely that writing this article (and first having the experience of delivering for Amazon) got him hired. Good for him!
Exactly, good for him. Some people just know how to write. I rarely read more than a couple paragraphs in pieces like this, but he grabbed me until the end.
Really glad to hear that!
And writing that piece for The Atlantic is a fine accomplishment, too.
I read somewhere (or internalized) something like: great mythologies are full of good humor. I love how his opening paragraph is of angst so relatable (social group) and so laughable (here's my consulting partner, Rabbit).
And writing that piece for The Atlantic is a fine accomplishment, too.
I read somewhere (or internalized) something like: great mythologies are full of good humor. I love how his opening paragraph is of angst so relatable (social group) and so laughable (here's my consulting partner, Rabbit).
The world has more than enough journalists and exceptionally few reporters.
Some exacerbated by every recent trend, it seems. Every “I’m starting a Substack!” story seems to be for someone that’s going to post endless reams of their opinions and not do an ounce of actual original reporting. I know Glenn Greenwald won a Pulitzer but it wasn’t for the kind of writing he posts now.
The internet has commoditized facts. It doesn't matter who reports the news as it is everywhere in minutes as soon as it breaks. There is little to no reward for being first. The financial incentives therefore all push these companies into more profitable areas of journalism outside of reporting.
Words are commoditized. Veracity and context are not.
A journalist's job is to be accurate and communicate most of a complex topic concisely.
I'd argue the internet is pretty bad at that, for any sudden news event.
A journalist's job is to be accurate and communicate most of a complex topic concisely.
I'd argue the internet is pretty bad at that, for any sudden news event.
Completely wrong. Actually, there’s an iceberg effect at play here. There are many more reporters than journalists, delivering pure news every day, doing in-depth reporting. And it makes sense logically: the number of people who have large enough audiences to generate an income by simply being controversial is rather small in the large scheme of things.
people who have large enough audiences to generate an income by simply being controversial
That is neither journalism, nor reporting. That is editorial.
That is neither journalism, nor reporting. That is editorial.
It can be all three at the same time. Glenn Greenwald and Bari Weiss are two figures on opposite sides of the political spectrum who have both mastered this.
[deleted]
The world has more than enough activists, opinion writers, and propagandists that call themselves "journalists" but exceptionally few actual journalists.
Lets not degrade the word Journalists like Apple has degraded the word Genius....
Lets not degrade the word Journalists like Apple has degraded the word Genius....
Can't upvote this enough.
Journalism has become such a tough field. I know a number of people who do OK in it. But I know a whole lot more who do writing-related stuff for companies that sell products.
How can we fix that? Many of my family members and friends have little to no interest in reading or learning, although they do have strong opinions on just about every topic.
In my mind, demand for journalism and quality journalism is going to be difficult when folks don’t want or don’t care to read. They have enough things trying to grab their attention that provide an instant gratification — whereas journalism or reading some well researched or written article requires mental effort and investment and almost an appreciation. I personally didn’t appreciate good journalism or writers until I tried writing (mostly technical documents).
I learned two things quickly. Not only did I need to know the subject matter but I needed to convey it in some form that made sense, didn’t just lead to unrelated questions that derail what I’m trying to achieve, and didn’t put the reader to sleep. This is a hard problem, in my opinion.
In my mind, demand for journalism and quality journalism is going to be difficult when folks don’t want or don’t care to read. They have enough things trying to grab their attention that provide an instant gratification — whereas journalism or reading some well researched or written article requires mental effort and investment and almost an appreciation. I personally didn’t appreciate good journalism or writers until I tried writing (mostly technical documents).
I learned two things quickly. Not only did I need to know the subject matter but I needed to convey it in some form that made sense, didn’t just lead to unrelated questions that derail what I’m trying to achieve, and didn’t put the reader to sleep. This is a hard problem, in my opinion.
"How can we fix that? ... demand for journalism and quality journalism is going to be difficult when folks don’t want or don’t care to read."
The education system needs to be radically reformed to teach kids to value reading, knowledge, and learning for its own sake and not just to pass tests and get in to schools that will get them high paying jobs. Critical reading and thinking skills also need to be taught more effectively.
Unfortunately, such reform is difficult to undertake in a society which mostly doesn't value any of that, and when politicians consider critical thinking among their voters to be detrimental to their own interests.
The education system needs to be radically reformed to teach kids to value reading, knowledge, and learning for its own sake and not just to pass tests and get in to schools that will get them high paying jobs. Critical reading and thinking skills also need to be taught more effectively.
Unfortunately, such reform is difficult to undertake in a society which mostly doesn't value any of that, and when politicians consider critical thinking among their voters to be detrimental to their own interests.
I agree. Its not in decision makers interest to fix education. It's a lot of work and elections won't wait for you to finish. A crap education might even be politically expedient - and I'm sure politicians have been campaigning to fix it for over 5 decades at this point.
>How can we fix that?
There are a great many people who would like to know the answer to that question but, for the most part, almost no one has. (Almost because there are a few global brands, especially those that provide financial reporting, that are doing OK but most aren't.
There are a lot of reasons, not least of all that the Internet broke the newspaper bundle that forced people advertising in the classifieds for roommates or the local car dealership advertising a sale to effectively subsidize the paper's prestige foreign bureaus and investigative journalism because where else were they going to advertise?
Plus, you don't need a subscription to SI any longer to keep up with whatever is going on in the world of sports.
There are a great many people who would like to know the answer to that question but, for the most part, almost no one has. (Almost because there are a few global brands, especially those that provide financial reporting, that are doing OK but most aren't.
There are a lot of reasons, not least of all that the Internet broke the newspaper bundle that forced people advertising in the classifieds for roommates or the local car dealership advertising a sale to effectively subsidize the paper's prestige foreign bureaus and investigative journalism because where else were they going to advertise?
Plus, you don't need a subscription to SI any longer to keep up with whatever is going on in the world of sports.
I think the point of maximum leverage is making it easier to support good journalism via tools that don't have a corruptible middleman. It's impossible to support truly independent journalists via platforms like Patreon when those platforms are in bed with institutions like Vice, anyone who is truly independent and covering dangerous stories is subject to being memory-holed. But the desire to directly support real journalism is there, I think it just needs a robust payment system which is also robust to corruption in its own organization.
Meh -- they've done themselves such harm in recent years by embracing activism and deliberate bias that it's hard for me to feel too bad for the industry.
That said, I'll applaud whichever journalists are brave enough to start pushing their industry/art back towards objectivity and diversity of perspective.
That said, I'll applaud whichever journalists are brave enough to start pushing their industry/art back towards objectivity and diversity of perspective.
it's hard for me to feel too bad for the industry
It's important to understand the causal direction here. As the industry took hit after hit while the internet gained dominance, media outlet like Fox News pioneered highly opinionated reporting & commentary, and it worked. Viewers & readers were more attracted to content that raised an emotional response. There's blame to put on the industry, but I can't separate that from the how the internet changed the economics of news media & how that mixed with human nature.
Incidentally, if you're looking for a good source of non-opinionated reporting, Reuters is probably one of the best. It tends to be more straightforward factual reporting, and I can't find any media ratings that place it outside the center/minimal-bias zone.
It's important to understand the causal direction here. As the industry took hit after hit while the internet gained dominance, media outlet like Fox News pioneered highly opinionated reporting & commentary, and it worked. Viewers & readers were more attracted to content that raised an emotional response. There's blame to put on the industry, but I can't separate that from the how the internet changed the economics of news media & how that mixed with human nature.
Incidentally, if you're looking for a good source of non-opinionated reporting, Reuters is probably one of the best. It tends to be more straightforward factual reporting, and I can't find any media ratings that place it outside the center/minimal-bias zone.
Humans give greater credence to those expressing negative opinions. The media and politicians take advantage of this to get attention and votes. In the past the limited competition in the media allowed the voice of reason to prevail. Now the race to the bottom has made that a losing proposition for running a business selling information.
Embracing activism isn't necessarily a shooting oneself in the foot, it can be a way of trying to ensure greater profitability. A case in point is The Guardian which took a huge turn in the last decade ago from traditional British working-class themes to trans issues and the specific kind of race debates originating from the US. By doing so, the newspaper could, firstly, win the allegiance of self-identified "woke" readers (who are often affluent and thus a target for advertisers). But even for other readers, culture-war-related reporting can get people all fired up and thus generate views and ad impressions.
Sure and that's why they do it, but it's feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think the future will mostly be the best writers being directly supported by people interested in their beat.
I'm not sure how generic media orgs will continue on, but I'd expect the quality to continue to degrade.
I think the future will mostly be the best writers being directly supported by people interested in their beat.
I'm not sure how generic media orgs will continue on, but I'd expect the quality to continue to degrade.
Interesting idea. What do you imagine would happen to the global health correspondent when there's not a pandemic going on, or the war correspondent when there's not a war going on?
I pay for the Guardian mostly because it's the only paper I know that covers global stories and gives climate breakdown anything resembling the degree of coverage it deserves. For a while I subscribed to The Times, but felt dirty supporting a Murdoch-owned paper.
I used to get the Guardian paper delivered - that makes me feel sad.
> Meh -- they've done themselves such harm in recent years by embracing activism and deliberate bias that it's hard for me to feel too bad for the industry.
Journalism's financial problems predate "recent years," and perhaps those problems have actually lead to or exacerbated the problems you're complaining about. E.g. investigative journalism is hard, time-consuming, and expensive; an underfunded, short-staffed newspaper may turn to other, cheaper things to fill its pages and attract readers.
Journalism's financial problems predate "recent years," and perhaps those problems have actually lead to or exacerbated the problems you're complaining about. E.g. investigative journalism is hard, time-consuming, and expensive; an underfunded, short-staffed newspaper may turn to other, cheaper things to fill its pages and attract readers.
Faux-objective journalism is such a soulless drag. Everyone has biases, attempting to hide them is just gutless.
The presence of bias in an individual jounalist as a human is expected. But being a professional means having some standards that boost trust in the profession overall.
Clearly you wouldn't say that judges and police and prosecutors should just follow their biases and go after whoever they want or protect whoever they want.
Journalists don't have any legal obligation to follow standards, but they do have a professional obligation.
Clearly you wouldn't say that judges and police and prosecutors should just follow their biases and go after whoever they want or protect whoever they want.
Journalists don't have any legal obligation to follow standards, but they do have a professional obligation.
Do you know where I can find these agreed upon standards for journalists?
Telling the truth for a living may be a drag, but playing on the readers' emotions and biases for ad traffic revenue seems far more soulless by comparison.
Most people I know don't mind reading a journalist that is open with their biases as long as that journalist is objective when it comes to facts. The problem in today's media is that biased journalists ignore facts or just outright lie when the facts don't jive with the narrative they are trying to push. Its one thing to report on a story and spin the facts in such a way that correlates with your perspective and entirely another thing to conceal facts or invent your own. Most legacy "journalism" has devolved into a toxic brew of woke hot takes and the uncritical, anonymous dissemination of intelligence agency assertions.
The Guardian was mentioned above, and is an excellent example of this. The Guardian never made much attempt to hide their social and political biases in the past, but it was still a widely respected and credible newspaper, even to those who didn't necessarily share the same perspectives. Unfortunately, The Guardian, like most other legacy news outlets, went off the rails at some point over the last 5 years. They stopped reporting the news, and starting inventing it. Anyone following their coverage of the Assange saga saw numerous examples of this such as the, "Manafort met Assange in the embassy" fairy tale (including details like what Manafort was wearing to make the lie extra convincing). The problem is, it never happened! Yet still, 4 years later, it sits on their website, no retraction, no correction. The credibility problem is real.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
The Guardian was mentioned above, and is an excellent example of this. The Guardian never made much attempt to hide their social and political biases in the past, but it was still a widely respected and credible newspaper, even to those who didn't necessarily share the same perspectives. Unfortunately, The Guardian, like most other legacy news outlets, went off the rails at some point over the last 5 years. They stopped reporting the news, and starting inventing it. Anyone following their coverage of the Assange saga saw numerous examples of this such as the, "Manafort met Assange in the embassy" fairy tale (including details like what Manafort was wearing to make the lie extra convincing). The problem is, it never happened! Yet still, 4 years later, it sits on their website, no retraction, no correction. The credibility problem is real.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
Personally what I find most frustrating is the two-facedness of it. State your bias. Maybe each reporter should have a visible profile above the article below the headline stating their “political compass results”. Why does CNN/Fox News continue to claim they are objective reporting when they have been caught so often failing to do so.
At the least, maybe explaining the other party’s perspective (as still flawed as this would be).
Ex: situation at the border
Republicans call it a crisis, they cite x, y, z. Their main argument is that illegal immigration causes X....
Democrats argue that the situation is at the root because of Y....
Be out about the biases. We all have biases, deceptively trying to hide them is worse: be completely out with them.
At the least, maybe explaining the other party’s perspective (as still flawed as this would be).
Ex: situation at the border
Republicans call it a crisis, they cite x, y, z. Their main argument is that illegal immigration causes X....
Democrats argue that the situation is at the root because of Y....
Be out about the biases. We all have biases, deceptively trying to hide them is worse: be completely out with them.
> Everyone has biases, attempting to hide them is just gutless.
I think this is situation-dependent.
A lot of product review journalism is nigh-worthless because giving robust reviews would cut off the freebies, previews and ad spending they depend on.
It's easy to imagine how that could be more objective: Just stop accepting freebies.
On the other hand, some situations are almost impossible to make objective: If you're a political journalist reporting on a politician doing foo today, and you know previously they promised not-foo, does reporting that context make your reporting more objective or less?
I think this is situation-dependent.
A lot of product review journalism is nigh-worthless because giving robust reviews would cut off the freebies, previews and ad spending they depend on.
It's easy to imagine how that could be more objective: Just stop accepting freebies.
On the other hand, some situations are almost impossible to make objective: If you're a political journalist reporting on a politician doing foo today, and you know previously they promised not-foo, does reporting that context make your reporting more objective or less?
Faux-objective journalism is such a soulless drag. Everyone has biases, attempting to hide them is just gutless.
If doctors just prescribed whatever gave the bigger commission from drug companies, would you ever trust a doctor?
If doctors just prescribed whatever gave the bigger commission from drug companies, would you ever trust a doctor?
I mean...many of them do? At least in America, that's a thing. Now it might not be the ONLY factor (I don't believe most MDs are out here prescribing things that patients wouldn't find beneficial) but it plays into their equation. And occasionally we do hear stories about pill farms...
I have seen the opposite with doctors in my experience, going with what is the cheapest working option for the patient be it handing out several free sample packs to try a drug to checking for best covered option as a default. Like "XR is more expensive but we can subsitute three times a day for as cheap with your minimal plan vs okay you have good insurance, I can switch you to XR". I guess it is just good medical practice to help ensure dosage compliance if they aren't trying to ration the expense.
"Many" in my post was not meant to imply "most". I have no idea how many doctors are more focused on the money vs saving lives, but it's >0%. I will say my experience as a patient has reflected what you're describing, and that it would likely be that "doing what is best for my patient" often involves doing what's best for their bank account.
I just know I worked in pharma advertising, and we def identified who helped push product. There's a reason the industry is so heavily regulated, well actually many reasons, but one of them is def because drug companies exploit US insurance practices using copay and other programs which allow. And people doctors definitely have different attitudes when speaking with "Dude with platinum level insurance" and "Dude who has no insurance and works as a waiter".
I just know I worked in pharma advertising, and we def identified who helped push product. There's a reason the industry is so heavily regulated, well actually many reasons, but one of them is def because drug companies exploit US insurance practices using copay and other programs which allow. And people doctors definitely have different attitudes when speaking with "Dude with platinum level insurance" and "Dude who has no insurance and works as a waiter".
I wasn't aware that journalists prescribed medicine. Don't be disingenuous!
It’s called an analogy, it’s illustrating a situation where a professional’s interests are misaligned with the users of their services.
It's not a very good analogy!
So the fact that all information is biased is an excuse to force your own ideological bias into every communication?
This is as much of a fallacy as the common "everything is political" refrain. It's nothing but a dangerous rationalization of tribalism which breeds distrust of institutions and disenfranchises political minorities when the entire establishment leans in a particular direction and simultaneously determines the set of "acceptable" or "authoritative" sources. News media, "fact checkers", Wikipedia editors, etc. are implicitly colluding and the results are already manifesting with long term disastrous cultural and political consequences that we are yet to fully witness. There is no excuse for the hyper polarization of modern media, it is a disservice to everyone, and we need to un-normalize the kind of insidious activist journalism that has infested all of our major publications, though the system is self reinforcing at this point.
This is as much of a fallacy as the common "everything is political" refrain. It's nothing but a dangerous rationalization of tribalism which breeds distrust of institutions and disenfranchises political minorities when the entire establishment leans in a particular direction and simultaneously determines the set of "acceptable" or "authoritative" sources. News media, "fact checkers", Wikipedia editors, etc. are implicitly colluding and the results are already manifesting with long term disastrous cultural and political consequences that we are yet to fully witness. There is no excuse for the hyper polarization of modern media, it is a disservice to everyone, and we need to un-normalize the kind of insidious activist journalism that has infested all of our major publications, though the system is self reinforcing at this point.
This is a particularly naive viewpoint on journalism / the publishing industry. Journalists may be the face of the industry, but they're not the primary deciders. They don't control the business decisions, or indeed many of the individual editorial decisions.
Just like one little nugget of anecdata. I used to work at a radio station in a small market that was 1/3 stations run out of the same building by the same owner, an older conservative woman who inherited the business. One station was all-talk (AM) one was country (FM) and the other was classic rock (FM).
All. Three. Stations. Had to carry Rush Limbaugh over the objections of FM program managers. Why? Because Alvina liked Rush. She wanted to blanket the airwaves with his show. And she didn't have to deal with any competition in the little corner of the world where the stations aired. People don't see those decisions, though.
Granted this is a particular egregious example, but by and large TV/radio/cable/etc. programming is at a macro level dictated by upper echelons of the business, not by the front-line reporters or editors.
Print publishing has been gutted over the past 20+ years by a lot of factors. (Radio even longer, see Clear Channel, et al.)
Consolidation. A move from print publishing to web publishing that has required more and more intrusive tracking and obsession with clicks -- not quality, just "how many page views?" and then "how many uniques?" or whatever the metric du jour happens to be. I've been on the publishing side and corporate side, and I've never once heard a company factor quality of content into its advertising decisions. Which means it's a race to the bottom -- not in terms of bias, but in terms of "what gets eyeballs?"
People love to bitch about the quality of journalism, etc. but yet... they keep consuming it. They certainly don't want to pay for good journalism. Not as individuals, not with corporate marketing dollars. If an ad buyer can get 10x the clicks and leads with crap than they can get with well-reasoned and well-researched content? They'll buy crap every time. And blame the journalists/press/publications for the quality and then do it all over again.
Not to mention the effects of Google and Facebook, which are hard to understate.
Google has done a huge number on publications that initially managed to navigate the print -> online model. Its dominance on online ads has done a lot to harm publications, and not only monetarily. Facebook has trained people to expect their information funneled through their feeds and has inserted itself between the audience and publications. Traffic that used to come directly to the publication now funnels through Facebook -- or never actually arrives at the publication at all. Hard to make a buck that way.
This isn't even getting into consolidation of local newspapers by conglomerates and private equity[1].
If front-line journalists are biased one way, I assure you the upper management through ownership are biased in the other direction by and large, excepting (perhaps) some social issues where bean-counters have seen that the winds have changed and it's more profitable to be visibly progressive vs. visibly conservative.
I went corporate a number of years ago because the writing was on the wall. If I'd stayed in publishing as a freelancer / writer / editor it would be years of paddling faster to make the same money. Companies didn't give two shits about quality, just shove something out the door that would play on social and/or SEO. If you think the people doing the work are deciding to embrace that, you're sorely mistaken.
[1] https://prospect.org/health/saving-free-press-private-equity...
Just like one little nugget of anecdata. I used to work at a radio station in a small market that was 1/3 stations run out of the same building by the same owner, an older conservative woman who inherited the business. One station was all-talk (AM) one was country (FM) and the other was classic rock (FM).
All. Three. Stations. Had to carry Rush Limbaugh over the objections of FM program managers. Why? Because Alvina liked Rush. She wanted to blanket the airwaves with his show. And she didn't have to deal with any competition in the little corner of the world where the stations aired. People don't see those decisions, though.
Granted this is a particular egregious example, but by and large TV/radio/cable/etc. programming is at a macro level dictated by upper echelons of the business, not by the front-line reporters or editors.
Print publishing has been gutted over the past 20+ years by a lot of factors. (Radio even longer, see Clear Channel, et al.)
Consolidation. A move from print publishing to web publishing that has required more and more intrusive tracking and obsession with clicks -- not quality, just "how many page views?" and then "how many uniques?" or whatever the metric du jour happens to be. I've been on the publishing side and corporate side, and I've never once heard a company factor quality of content into its advertising decisions. Which means it's a race to the bottom -- not in terms of bias, but in terms of "what gets eyeballs?"
People love to bitch about the quality of journalism, etc. but yet... they keep consuming it. They certainly don't want to pay for good journalism. Not as individuals, not with corporate marketing dollars. If an ad buyer can get 10x the clicks and leads with crap than they can get with well-reasoned and well-researched content? They'll buy crap every time. And blame the journalists/press/publications for the quality and then do it all over again.
Not to mention the effects of Google and Facebook, which are hard to understate.
Google has done a huge number on publications that initially managed to navigate the print -> online model. Its dominance on online ads has done a lot to harm publications, and not only monetarily. Facebook has trained people to expect their information funneled through their feeds and has inserted itself between the audience and publications. Traffic that used to come directly to the publication now funnels through Facebook -- or never actually arrives at the publication at all. Hard to make a buck that way.
This isn't even getting into consolidation of local newspapers by conglomerates and private equity[1].
If front-line journalists are biased one way, I assure you the upper management through ownership are biased in the other direction by and large, excepting (perhaps) some social issues where bean-counters have seen that the winds have changed and it's more profitable to be visibly progressive vs. visibly conservative.
I went corporate a number of years ago because the writing was on the wall. If I'd stayed in publishing as a freelancer / writer / editor it would be years of paddling faster to make the same money. Companies didn't give two shits about quality, just shove something out the door that would play on social and/or SEO. If you think the people doing the work are deciding to embrace that, you're sorely mistaken.
[1] https://prospect.org/health/saving-free-press-private-equity...
Why not start your own news publication? Run it according to your own rules.
Well, for one thing.. then I'm a publisher, not a journalist. Running a business does not appeal to me in the slightest.
Secondly, most of the problems facing publications are market forces that aren't going to go away just because the person at the helm does care about quality.
There are publications that succeed by the skin of their teeth. LWN for example. But that's a pretty rare, niche example that would be very difficult to replicate.
Secondly, most of the problems facing publications are market forces that aren't going to go away just because the person at the helm does care about quality.
There are publications that succeed by the skin of their teeth. LWN for example. But that's a pretty rare, niche example that would be very difficult to replicate.
Your newspaper can be as simple as a web site you create. There's almost zero cost of entry. It can be grown organically, as you develop a reputation for real journalism. Start small by specializing in articles on one topic like, say, what the city council is doing or what Boeing is doing. Become the go-to source of accurate information on that.
It'd be like the olden days when random people would print and distribute pamphlets like "Common Sense".
It'd be like the olden days when random people would print and distribute pamphlets like "Common Sense".
I keep on hearing the kvetching about not being willing to pay for good journalism but where the hell can I actually find it? It comes across as pure entitlement on their part, especially since I recall the various youth targetted moral panics like rainbow parties and "pharm parties" of taking literally everything in the medical cabinets like a bowl of skittles and taking them randomly - there were not nearly enough dead bodies or hospitalizations for that level of stupidity. Let alone trivially Google research refutable claims - it is one thing to write at a third grade level, it is another to be out fact checked by third graders.
"solutions journalism" is an really interesting effort to adapt journalism to current realities in a positive way.
"It investigates and explains, in a critical and clear-eyed way, examples of people working toward solutions. It focuses not just on what may be working, but how and why it appears to be working, or alternatively, why it may be stumbling. Using the best available evidence, it delves deep into the how-to’s of problem solving, often structuring stories as puzzles or mysteries that investigate questions like: What models are having success reducing the dropout rate in public schools? How do they actually work? What are they doing differently than others that’s resulting in a better outcome?"
https://medium.com/@soljourno/what-is-solutions-journalism-c...
https://www.solutionsjournalism.org/
"It investigates and explains, in a critical and clear-eyed way, examples of people working toward solutions. It focuses not just on what may be working, but how and why it appears to be working, or alternatively, why it may be stumbling. Using the best available evidence, it delves deep into the how-to’s of problem solving, often structuring stories as puzzles or mysteries that investigate questions like: What models are having success reducing the dropout rate in public schools? How do they actually work? What are they doing differently than others that’s resulting in a better outcome?"
https://medium.com/@soljourno/what-is-solutions-journalism-c...
https://www.solutionsjournalism.org/
I'm bemused at newspapers that want to "save the free press" by getting government funding.
(Whoever pays the bills decides the content.)
(Whoever pays the bills decides the content.)
They didn't choose activism because they are lazy or ideologues (although the industry may increasingly populated by lazy ideologues). The journalism industry chose activism because it sells better than objective journalism.
I could start an online paper about my local town and write purely objective stories. "Town council meeting today went as expected, complicated issue without clear solution continued unsolved". That probably won't get very many readers though. For one thing, relatively few people live in my town so few people will care. For another, the internet has conditioned people to get news for free, so the only way to monetize results in getting very little money (e.g. ads) from each reader, and, as just established, we'll have few readers because the town is small.
The revealed preference of news readers is to look at outrageous stuff and polemics. Get involved in a culture war about who did what why and what it means - that could attract millions of readers who you can slightly monetize to earn enough to get by. Do real journalism and few people will read it and they won't pay you won't for it... So...
I'm not saying this in a judgmental way. I don't pay for news either. I read what comes up on twitter, hackernews, linked to by friends, etc. I have an ad-blocker and I skip whatever content has a paywall that I can't bypass. I realize I'm part of the problem, but in a "tragedy of the commons" way. That is, the world would be better if everyone paid for and paid attention to primarily local and "hard-hitting" fair journalism, but there would be zero perceptible positive change if I switched to that model and perceptible negative costs for me for doing so.
I could start an online paper about my local town and write purely objective stories. "Town council meeting today went as expected, complicated issue without clear solution continued unsolved". That probably won't get very many readers though. For one thing, relatively few people live in my town so few people will care. For another, the internet has conditioned people to get news for free, so the only way to monetize results in getting very little money (e.g. ads) from each reader, and, as just established, we'll have few readers because the town is small.
The revealed preference of news readers is to look at outrageous stuff and polemics. Get involved in a culture war about who did what why and what it means - that could attract millions of readers who you can slightly monetize to earn enough to get by. Do real journalism and few people will read it and they won't pay you won't for it... So...
I'm not saying this in a judgmental way. I don't pay for news either. I read what comes up on twitter, hackernews, linked to by friends, etc. I have an ad-blocker and I skip whatever content has a paywall that I can't bypass. I realize I'm part of the problem, but in a "tragedy of the commons" way. That is, the world would be better if everyone paid for and paid attention to primarily local and "hard-hitting" fair journalism, but there would be zero perceptible positive change if I switched to that model and perceptible negative costs for me for doing so.
Journalism is not "reporting exactly what happened" - journalism is supposed to be investigation, and to draw conclusions.
Obviously there's bias, but that's the point: journalism has never and should not be "this person said 1 thing, someone else said a different thing". It's the path of "should you drink bleach? Scientists say no, this random nutbag says yes."
Obviously there's bias, but that's the point: journalism has never and should not be "this person said 1 thing, someone else said a different thing". It's the path of "should you drink bleach? Scientists say no, this random nutbag says yes."
Donald Trump probably saved the New York Times...
Weird thing to say for a dying industry that's basically whoring itself for the highest bidder. You want objectivity and unbias? Those are not cheap, and until the whole journalism industry is fixed, you're going to keep getting what we have.
"Journalists are pushing their own viewpoints and no longer being objective" is a complaint that's been with us since as long as there's been journalism, though. The Nixon administration famously toyed with the idea of creating their own news service because they believed the news organizations of the day were biased against them. Hell, the phrase "yellow journalism" goes back to the late 1800s and the often sensationalist New York World, a paper whose publisher declared it as "dedicated to the cause of the people rather than that of purse-potentates." That activist publisher was Joseph Pulitzer. (His battles with equally sensationalist rival publisher Hearst led to the "yellow journalism" charges.)
I started out in print journalism in the 90s, it was such a cool thing back then in my country. I switched to internet content when it just started because it was exciting, not because I foresaw any decline of journalism on the horizon. And then interacting with the devs of the website I was working for reminded me that tech was actually my real passion, so I made the switch to being a developer myself. I'm grateful for that decision pretty much every single day ever since.
Exceptionally well written with more than one Big Lebowski reference but one minor correction...
"Since then, as Jeff Lebowski explains to Maude between hits on a postcoital roach, “my career has slowed down a little bit.”"
s/Jeff Lebowski/The Dude
I believe The Dude made that distinction very clear in the movie :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY
Joking aside I truly admire this man's outlook and ability to take a pretty big setback and make a positive out of it.
"Since then, as Jeff Lebowski explains to Maude between hits on a postcoital roach, “my career has slowed down a little bit.”"
s/Jeff Lebowski/The Dude
I believe The Dude made that distinction very clear in the movie :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY
Joking aside I truly admire this man's outlook and ability to take a pretty big setback and make a positive out of it.
I know that many of us here don't like what labor unions have become in the 21st century. But they do need some labor representation that can ensure the trucks used by drivers have working lights, mirrors, and safe tires, and that the company negotiates use of restrooms around the city. Maybe just a "safety only" union that only deals with safety issues?
My foray into 'blue collar' society (in large urban areas at least) taught me this clear and wide: most of it is run by vultures. The simplest equipment is optional, safety equipment is optional, hygiene is optional. Inhumane production rates are mandatory. Companies will scam you as much as the first stranger on an undeclared gig.
It's adversarial relationships from top to bottom. People are clueless, and don't want to make things better. Things rot as long as people involved are accepting, or forced to accept, the situation. Actually one gig I did was newspaper delivery and it's clear that the web took a lot of the money from them and they're barely surviving at the cost of employees.
Another factor, systems struggle accelerate when out of the mean, the lower the company is the lower the work life is, the worse the employees they can get is .. less means, less profits, more work.
It's adversarial relationships from top to bottom. People are clueless, and don't want to make things better. Things rot as long as people involved are accepting, or forced to accept, the situation. Actually one gig I did was newspaper delivery and it's clear that the web took a lot of the money from them and they're barely surviving at the cost of employees.
Another factor, systems struggle accelerate when out of the mean, the lower the company is the lower the work life is, the worse the employees they can get is .. less means, less profits, more work.
A forum mostly frequented by us overpaid workers doing little-more-than-if-any work that society actually needs is not the right place to discuss unions. Of course people in our industry, no matter devs or ops or founders or "founders", despise unions as they get in their way with demands of some basic workers rights. But there are industries where unions are desperately needed to keep workers sane, safe and overall dignified. With little first hand experience it's just too easy to dismiss that.
[deleted]
Labor unions work when a firm is earning economic rents, and there is a political struggle over who gets those rents. For example the auto-industry prior to the invasion by Japanese imports.
The issue is that when there are no economic rents, then labor unions no longer work and indeed become an added cost. A lot of people don't seem to understand that, neither do they understand that economic rents are something that dissipates over time as new entrants come in with cheaper products. Especially in the world of free trade where you are competing with China and other low cost countries (in China labor unions are controlled by the state and starting your own is illegal).
But the trouble with journalism is not that fat cat firms are swimming in loads of cash and only if workers could orgnanize and demand a bigger slice of the pot they could get that. So the job security that a union job can provide an individual in one industry is not generalizable to a dying industry where companies are going bankrupt and need to cut costs as their revenues shrink.
But, you object, what about places like Germany where basically every firm is unionized? Well, unions in Germany are very different. Germany didn't even have a minimum wage until recently. None. And pay in Germany is lower. So you can't look at, say, what an UAW worker or Teamster in the US makes and then think that's what a typical worker in Germany is making because they are all unionized. So again we have this generalizability problem, where the _real_ sources of high income for workers are not unions but increasing return to scale, high productivity jobs. That is why tech workers make more than journalists. And that is why nations like Germany or China that want a society of high wage jobs fight to keep their manufacturing sector and high value add sectors, while nations like the US that are focused on short-term GDP growth have no issue selling off their high productivity jobs and shipping them overseas, at which point no amount of unionizing is going to help bring those high wage jobs back. Similarly when your industry is going bankrupt and shrinking, no amount of unionizing is going to give you the job security and good wages the prevoius generation of workers had in the same industry. This is not a problem of labor policy but industrial policy, and no amount of labor policy intervention is going to solve the industrial policy problem.
The issue is that when there are no economic rents, then labor unions no longer work and indeed become an added cost. A lot of people don't seem to understand that, neither do they understand that economic rents are something that dissipates over time as new entrants come in with cheaper products. Especially in the world of free trade where you are competing with China and other low cost countries (in China labor unions are controlled by the state and starting your own is illegal).
But the trouble with journalism is not that fat cat firms are swimming in loads of cash and only if workers could orgnanize and demand a bigger slice of the pot they could get that. So the job security that a union job can provide an individual in one industry is not generalizable to a dying industry where companies are going bankrupt and need to cut costs as their revenues shrink.
But, you object, what about places like Germany where basically every firm is unionized? Well, unions in Germany are very different. Germany didn't even have a minimum wage until recently. None. And pay in Germany is lower. So you can't look at, say, what an UAW worker or Teamster in the US makes and then think that's what a typical worker in Germany is making because they are all unionized. So again we have this generalizability problem, where the _real_ sources of high income for workers are not unions but increasing return to scale, high productivity jobs. That is why tech workers make more than journalists. And that is why nations like Germany or China that want a society of high wage jobs fight to keep their manufacturing sector and high value add sectors, while nations like the US that are focused on short-term GDP growth have no issue selling off their high productivity jobs and shipping them overseas, at which point no amount of unionizing is going to help bring those high wage jobs back. Similarly when your industry is going bankrupt and shrinking, no amount of unionizing is going to give you the job security and good wages the prevoius generation of workers had in the same industry. This is not a problem of labor policy but industrial policy, and no amount of labor policy intervention is going to solve the industrial policy problem.
UPS is union and their employees urinate in bottles.
I don't think unions are the magic wand that a lot of people assume they are
I don't think unions are the magic wand that a lot of people assume they are
Source: https://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/urine-bottles-in...
Apparently, drivers are given plenty of break times and are allowed bathroom breaks, but this behavior continues. I wonder what the economic impact of putting a portable toilet closet in the truck is? Each truck would have 30% less capacity? Would employees get less breaks then?
Apparently, drivers are given plenty of break times and are allowed bathroom breaks, but this behavior continues. I wonder what the economic impact of putting a portable toilet closet in the truck is? Each truck would have 30% less capacity? Would employees get less breaks then?
But it's a union-approved bottle though.
It seems to me that a lot of the problem is (and will be) the instrumenting of jobs. The ability surveil a workforce is only going to go up. Everyone, medical techs, cashiers, plumbers, non-rockstar software developers, are going to end up with that bottle.
It seems to me that a lot of the problem is (and will be) the instrumenting of jobs. The ability surveil a workforce is only going to go up. Everyone, medical techs, cashiers, plumbers, non-rockstar software developers, are going to end up with that bottle.
While "urinating in bottles" sounds like some sort of standard by which to indict, if you tried it you would find it's quite convenient. I'd guess that it's far down on the list of drivers' actual concerns.
What are you proposing should replace this? Trips back to the depot would be terribly inefficient. Portapotties in trucks would be just fancier bottles. And time to visit public restrooms would be better spent taking an actual break and then still using the bottle.
What are you proposing should replace this? Trips back to the depot would be terribly inefficient. Portapotties in trucks would be just fancier bottles. And time to visit public restrooms would be better spent taking an actual break and then still using the bottle.
I assume this is more true for men than women.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering : is this why I haven't seen a single delivery gal in my life ? ( Unlike trucker women.)
A little company I worked for ~20 years ago (Michigan, U.S.A.) had a female UPS driver. Her route was ~99% residential - so extremely few bathrooms. (Vs. it was easy, then, for UPS drivers delivering to office buildings, restaurants, etc.) We made it clear that she was free to use our bathroom at any time. She made it clear that our package delivery time & pick-up time could be far, far better than "that's where you are on my route" when we needed them to be.
(And I'm sure more things got shipped UPS than should have...I guess you'd call that "UPS's cut" of the deal.)
(And I'm sure more things got shipped UPS than should have...I guess you'd call that "UPS's cut" of the deal.)
There are portable solutions for women, but since they're built for the purpose they don't sensationalize as well as "peeing in bottles".
Not that I dislike your idea or unions at large, but mission creep will be inevitable: limiting hours and mandating benefits to ensure physical and mental health of the drivers will be linked to safety, and the whole host of benefits for worker wellness in the name of safety will follow. What you are asking for is what OSHA is for.
Union shops like UPS have the exact same issues as Amazon or FedEx (including urine bottles).
All of those should be a law of some form.
[deleted]
ksm1717(2)
barry-cotter(11)
Maybe we should pay Amazon drivers better. Maybe we should build public toilets.
Maybe a union...
Maybe a union...
I have the oddball anti union stance of, "maybe we should have a better society that doesn't require folks to stay in a job for benefits and pay..."
That is, I'm not anti union. I wish they were completely superfluous, though.
That is, I'm not anti union. I wish they were completely superfluous, though.
Amazon is clearly a monopoly, but consumer prices are "low", so they get to keep at it. A lot of the early anti-trust cases in history were pretty petty, and anything has precedent for not being a monopoly. But when you can literally under cut competition until they go out of business, then raise prices afterward, you're a monopoly. Example Diapers dot com, the undercutting did lower prices for consumers.
It turns out ANTIC interviews quite a few people from the old computer magazine and book industry, and retronauts is mostly made up of struggling video game journalists who cycle between the same magazines and being jobless or freelance. A few of them, especially the more senior folks basically have thrown in the towel and now work for other companies entirely within the video games industry.
What's really interesting about the ANTIC interviews is how close those folks were to the thing that basically displaced them (computers and ubiquitous networking), and yet none of them seems to have predicted it happening. To them the publishing and periodical industries had always been there and always will be. Their own employer going out of business was more due to local market forces affecting them or mergers between companies.
For the record, it didn't occur to me either. In the mid 90s I was sitting next to an incoming T-1 line at a startup ISP sending off physical envelopes with job applications to gaming and computer magazines I enjoyed hoping to become a journalist myself. One of the magazines that did reply (by mail btw) went out of business itself about 6 years later.