Amazon 2020 Letter to Shareholders(aboutamazon.com)
aboutamazon.com
Amazon 2020 Letter to Shareholders
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2020-letter-to-shareholders
173 comments
Yes Amazon is one of those institutions that you only see once in a lifetime. While they have had faults, they've always 'relentlessly' worked to improve. There is no doubt that Amazon may succumb to the same late-stage effects that have decayed those mentioned organizations.
[deleted]
Progressives tend to idolize complainers more than creators. Labor gets more credit for the 40 our work week than the employers who popularized it like Henry Ford. Civil rights activists get more credit than judges and lawmakers who risked their careers. This isn't to diminish the accomplishments of labor unions or the Civil Rights movement as it certainly takes a lot for disenfranchised groups to gain political clout. The problem is that it feeds to the illusion that simply complaining about things as loudly as possible about every single perceived injustice will somehow make the world better.
> complaining about things as loudly as possible about every single perceived injustice
What you describe here is how the American right caricatures people who make change in the US. Civil rights activists did more than "complain"; indeed, if they had only complained, it's hard to see how they would have been able to overcome white supremacists in business, law enforcement and government.
Just look at the Montgomery Bus Boycott, or the lesser-known Freedom Riders. These were campaigns organized by a coalition of local folks in the South (mostly, but not entirely Black) as well as anti-racists in the North. These activists were successful because they were strategic (the Freedom Riders forced the Kennedy Administration to enforce existing anti-segregation laws on US highways...) and incredibly brave (...and they endured having their bus firebombed by white supremacists while the police stood by watching).[0]
Much like organized labor, Civil Rights activists created a power base among the disenfranchised in the face of state sanctioned violence, up to and including assassination.[1]
It's fair to say that some progressives caricature the accomplishments of Amazon, which, on a technical level, are tremendous yet difficult for a non-technical person to appreciate. But this comment comes close to saying that ordinary people have no right to criticize the great men of industry like Jeff Bezos and Henry Ford. This is particularly ironic because Ford published and distributed anti-semitic propaganda to the extent that he was personally honored by Adolph Hitler[2]; Ford also hired armed thugs to intimidate and attack union organizers.[3]
There's a particular tendency on HN to lionize successful (rich) founders and CEOs to the point of obscuring their exploitation of labor. This includes Elon Musk, who literally purchased the title of "Founder" for Tesla, and whose factories had, at one point, accumulated more OSHA fines than the next ten car manufacturers put together.[4]
I'm not saying we shouldn't appreciate the staggering achievements of companies like Amazon or Tesla; I personally think Tesla has the only big vision worth pursuing in all of Silicon Valley. But nor should we ignore the human cost of what they do. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are among the two richest men in the world right now, and they got that wealth in no small part through the exploitation and human misery of their most vulnerable employees.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders#:~:text=Freedom....
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_American...
2. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/henryfo...
3. https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita...
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
What you describe here is how the American right caricatures people who make change in the US. Civil rights activists did more than "complain"; indeed, if they had only complained, it's hard to see how they would have been able to overcome white supremacists in business, law enforcement and government.
Just look at the Montgomery Bus Boycott, or the lesser-known Freedom Riders. These were campaigns organized by a coalition of local folks in the South (mostly, but not entirely Black) as well as anti-racists in the North. These activists were successful because they were strategic (the Freedom Riders forced the Kennedy Administration to enforce existing anti-segregation laws on US highways...) and incredibly brave (...and they endured having their bus firebombed by white supremacists while the police stood by watching).[0]
Much like organized labor, Civil Rights activists created a power base among the disenfranchised in the face of state sanctioned violence, up to and including assassination.[1]
It's fair to say that some progressives caricature the accomplishments of Amazon, which, on a technical level, are tremendous yet difficult for a non-technical person to appreciate. But this comment comes close to saying that ordinary people have no right to criticize the great men of industry like Jeff Bezos and Henry Ford. This is particularly ironic because Ford published and distributed anti-semitic propaganda to the extent that he was personally honored by Adolph Hitler[2]; Ford also hired armed thugs to intimidate and attack union organizers.[3]
There's a particular tendency on HN to lionize successful (rich) founders and CEOs to the point of obscuring their exploitation of labor. This includes Elon Musk, who literally purchased the title of "Founder" for Tesla, and whose factories had, at one point, accumulated more OSHA fines than the next ten car manufacturers put together.[4]
I'm not saying we shouldn't appreciate the staggering achievements of companies like Amazon or Tesla; I personally think Tesla has the only big vision worth pursuing in all of Silicon Valley. But nor should we ignore the human cost of what they do. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are among the two richest men in the world right now, and they got that wealth in no small part through the exploitation and human misery of their most vulnerable employees.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders#:~:text=Freedom....
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_American...
2. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/henryfo...
3. https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita...
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
I emphasized in my original comment that I was not diminishing the accomplishments of previous civil rights and labor activists. It's hard to deny how even they are primarily admired for their complaining rather than organizational abilities, and this is what activists primarily try to emulate now.
I agree that Tesla deserves their poor reputation, but Amazon genuinely seems like they care about workers' well-being. People perceive labor to be "exploited" because automation and globalization mean that American workers no longer have a monopoly on labor. It's a simple function of supply and demand. No amount of cherry picked anti-Amazon narratives is going to change that. Increased government spending would, as it does for the Nordic countries. However, nobody cares to detangle the web of perverse incentives baked in, so Americans will always view taxes as a waste of money.
I agree that Tesla deserves their poor reputation, but Amazon genuinely seems like they care about workers' well-being. People perceive labor to be "exploited" because automation and globalization mean that American workers no longer have a monopoly on labor. It's a simple function of supply and demand. No amount of cherry picked anti-Amazon narratives is going to change that. Increased government spending would, as it does for the Nordic countries. However, nobody cares to detangle the web of perverse incentives baked in, so Americans will always view taxes as a waste of money.
You're right that the work of civil rights organizers is misrepresented today. It's described as "They spoke truth to power, and power listened."
Of course that was never the case. They risked their lives and struggled for years to make progress. But that risk and struggle is minimized; to describe the people who undermined and attacked and killed them would be to indict the same groups of business people, police officers and law makers who perpetuate the same anti-civil rights agenda today. This is how Martin Luther King ends up being described as a Black Santa Claus rather than a radical organizer who was building a cross-racial, class-based movement for civil and economic rights. It's how schools across the country teach whole lessons about MLK for every grade, every year, and never talk about how the FBI harassed and targeted him and other civil rights leaders.
Of course that was never the case. They risked their lives and struggled for years to make progress. But that risk and struggle is minimized; to describe the people who undermined and attacked and killed them would be to indict the same groups of business people, police officers and law makers who perpetuate the same anti-civil rights agenda today. This is how Martin Luther King ends up being described as a Black Santa Claus rather than a radical organizer who was building a cross-racial, class-based movement for civil and economic rights. It's how schools across the country teach whole lessons about MLK for every grade, every year, and never talk about how the FBI harassed and targeted him and other civil rights leaders.
Someone once described Amazon as essentially a charity since they didn't take profits for shareholders in the first 20 years of their existence even though they could have. Even now they still reinvest most profits into capex.
"non-profit" would be at least appropriate for your point, "charity" definitely not. Those two terms are not actually synonyms.
But even with non-charity non-profit, Bezos wouldn't be so wealthy. Still, that's not your point. Your point is that it operates in a way to advance its business activities rather than to distribute profits, and that's largely true.
But even with non-charity non-profit, Bezos wouldn't be so wealthy. Still, that's not your point. Your point is that it operates in a way to advance its business activities rather than to distribute profits, and that's largely true.
Someone needs to read up on both the definition of charity and the definition of 'essentially'
I have yet to find a tech company that is not about extracting as much wealth as it can by min/maxing on human suffering.
Exactly. This is such an awful take that it makes me think maybe Bezos has time to spend on HN.
I suspect Bezos would have a more nuanced view.
> Stories they have been fed by the media and have accepted without thinking
Seems like you would rather drink the kool aid given to you in press releases by companies! Good going!
> Tech companies are the only inspiring institutions
Yes, I do feel inspired to hire vulnerable people and squash all their rights, make them work to the bone, violate all their privacy, and make them pee in bottles.
Seems like you would rather drink the kool aid given to you in press releases by companies! Good going!
> Tech companies are the only inspiring institutions
Yes, I do feel inspired to hire vulnerable people and squash all their rights, make them work to the bone, violate all their privacy, and make them pee in bottles.
> Tech companies are the only inspiring institutions that remain in America today. Everything else - government, media, academia, military - is in decay and has lost all of its legitimacy.
you will only find this level of slavish devotion to tech on HN and in the valley. Normal people do not think like this!
you will only find this level of slavish devotion to tech on HN and in the valley. Normal people do not think like this!
Speak for yourself. Pretty much everyone I know in my non-tech friends and family circles - everyone loves Amazon. Especially the customer service. Love has faded a tiny bit because of influx of Chinese cheap gadgets.
I'd say only tech people on HN are gung ho about Amazon's practices and in some sort of an eternal crusade against big corps. We can still criticize big corps for its workers rights and what not, but at the same time praise their technological prowess and incredible work from many thousands of people. They're orthogonal, but HN public does not know how to separate the two. Media fed and bloated minds sometimes.
Honestly, I come to HN for inspiration and motivation. Not activism. There are plenty of places to engage in productive activism on the internet if you wish, but better in person. HN is particularly not suited for it because of downvotes - activism requires people in person debating peacefully to progress and not regress into echo chambers. Activism is a joint affair, not an idealogical war. HN coalesces the worst of both - hive mind idealogical stance + echo chambering through black and grey text colors.
I'd say only tech people on HN are gung ho about Amazon's practices and in some sort of an eternal crusade against big corps. We can still criticize big corps for its workers rights and what not, but at the same time praise their technological prowess and incredible work from many thousands of people. They're orthogonal, but HN public does not know how to separate the two. Media fed and bloated minds sometimes.
Honestly, I come to HN for inspiration and motivation. Not activism. There are plenty of places to engage in productive activism on the internet if you wish, but better in person. HN is particularly not suited for it because of downvotes - activism requires people in person debating peacefully to progress and not regress into echo chambers. Activism is a joint affair, not an idealogical war. HN coalesces the worst of both - hive mind idealogical stance + echo chambering through black and grey text colors.
> Love has faded a tiny bit because of influx of Chinese cheap gadgets.
Love faded because Amazon removed the ability to filter search results for items shipped and sold only by Amazon.com, and they commingled inventory, so there is no guarantee of supply chain.
They made the decision to reduce their costs as a retailer, and subject their customers to supply chain risk, in order to increase their margins and sit back and earn commission as a platform.
At this point in time, I don’t see anything remarkable about Amazon’s retail operations. If anything, I would say Home Depot is more impressive, with a nice website showing me where the item is in their store, plus offering me various locations to pick it up or ship it to me. In fact, most retailers do this now (but I like Home Depot’s website the most).
Unlike Amazon, however, I don’t have to worry about resellers garbage on other websites (although Walmart is similar but I can still filter results there and I don’t think they commingle).
Love faded because Amazon removed the ability to filter search results for items shipped and sold only by Amazon.com, and they commingled inventory, so there is no guarantee of supply chain.
They made the decision to reduce their costs as a retailer, and subject their customers to supply chain risk, in order to increase their margins and sit back and earn commission as a platform.
At this point in time, I don’t see anything remarkable about Amazon’s retail operations. If anything, I would say Home Depot is more impressive, with a nice website showing me where the item is in their store, plus offering me various locations to pick it up or ship it to me. In fact, most retailers do this now (but I like Home Depot’s website the most).
Unlike Amazon, however, I don’t have to worry about resellers garbage on other websites (although Walmart is similar but I can still filter results there and I don’t think they commingle).
Yea, I agree with you. Amazon’s retail isn’t the same as it was before.
I think this is consensus amongst the tech elite crowd on HN including myself.
I’ve spoken to my dad who buys all kinds of stuff from Amazon in his retirement in rural area. He loves it. He is still amazed by the fact that someone delivers whatever you want by the press of a button. People of HN are myopic about their position, education and knowledge of technology and try to project that the rest of the world must be the same. I am guilty of that too.
HN is such a monumentally tiny bubble.
I think this is consensus amongst the tech elite crowd on HN including myself.
I’ve spoken to my dad who buys all kinds of stuff from Amazon in his retirement in rural area. He loves it. He is still amazed by the fact that someone delivers whatever you want by the press of a button. People of HN are myopic about their position, education and knowledge of technology and try to project that the rest of the world must be the same. I am guilty of that too.
HN is such a monumentally tiny bubble.
I was only pointing out that the claim of love fading due to cheap Chinese gadgets is wrong. They could have had all the cheap Chinese gadgets they want, and if they kept the filter for showing only Amazon sourced products and did not commingle inventory, then there would not have been any love faded.
That the lay population does not care or is not as informed about the above issue is probably true.
Although, the lay population is very price sensitive, and Amazon’s prices are much higher than comparable in store prices at Walmart/Costco/Target/Home Depot/etc. Especially if the item is a heavy and/or liquid.
That the lay population does not care or is not as informed about the above issue is probably true.
Although, the lay population is very price sensitive, and Amazon’s prices are much higher than comparable in store prices at Walmart/Costco/Target/Home Depot/etc. Especially if the item is a heavy and/or liquid.
> Everything else - government, media, academia, military - is in decay and has lost all of its legitimacy.
This seems like a stretch. Media certainly fits both of these, but it's hard to claim academia is in decay by most measures, and I have no idea how you could possibly claim American government or military are illegitimate OR in decay without resorting to completely subjective measures, such as how partisan the republic is or how few things get done (of the things you care about, no doubt).
(Note: one could construct a plausible claim that military is in decay based on what percentage of spending goes to operations instead of R&D and acquisition[0], but I'd argue this doesn't mean our military is in decay so much as entering a period of restructuring as a result of a series of unfortunate long-term planning misses)
[0] as seen on HN, https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2021/04/welcome-to-decad...
This seems like a stretch. Media certainly fits both of these, but it's hard to claim academia is in decay by most measures, and I have no idea how you could possibly claim American government or military are illegitimate OR in decay without resorting to completely subjective measures, such as how partisan the republic is or how few things get done (of the things you care about, no doubt).
(Note: one could construct a plausible claim that military is in decay based on what percentage of spending goes to operations instead of R&D and acquisition[0], but I'd argue this doesn't mean our military is in decay so much as entering a period of restructuring as a result of a series of unfortunate long-term planning misses)
[0] as seen on HN, https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2021/04/welcome-to-decad...
On academia, I work closely with a lot of professors at Oxford, MIT, Caltech and the like and they uniformly believe academia is in decline and with horrible institutional incentives accelerating that decay.
The decay of the US government is visible in the crumbling infrastructure, the homeless people on the streets and in tent cities, the trash, the shitty COVID response, the partisan bickering. It has no claim to leadership, it is not inspiring to anyone whether in the US or around the world. It is in crisis and it is a cultural crisis which is very hard to fix.
The decay of the US government is visible in the crumbling infrastructure, the homeless people on the streets and in tent cities, the trash, the shitty COVID response, the partisan bickering. It has no claim to leadership, it is not inspiring to anyone whether in the US or around the world. It is in crisis and it is a cultural crisis which is very hard to fix.
> The decay of the US government is visible in the crumbling infrastructure, the homeless people on the streets and in tent cities, the trash, the shitty COVID response, the partisan bickering. It has no claim to leadership, it is not inspiring to anyone whether in the US or around the world. It is in crisis and it is a cultural crisis which is very hard to fix.
You're throwing a lot of things out here, but they generally fall under being either (a) subjective, (b) deliberate policy choices by a democratically elected government, or (c) emergent properties of deliberate policy choices by a democratically elected government
Ultimately, if the people of this country don't want government spending on the sick and homeless, then it's not a decaying and illegitimate government, it is a well functioning and legitimate government as decided by a cruel populace.
Not to say the the government is perfectly legitimate, I could write an essay on issues with the way our government is structured and how certain design choices diminish citizen's representation in the government (for example: gerrymandering, first past the post electoral college allocation, and the near-permanence of effectively arbitrary state lines). But even the sum of these do not make our government illegitimate.
> it is a cultural crisis which is very hard to fix
I can agree on that much atleast.
You're throwing a lot of things out here, but they generally fall under being either (a) subjective, (b) deliberate policy choices by a democratically elected government, or (c) emergent properties of deliberate policy choices by a democratically elected government
Ultimately, if the people of this country don't want government spending on the sick and homeless, then it's not a decaying and illegitimate government, it is a well functioning and legitimate government as decided by a cruel populace.
Not to say the the government is perfectly legitimate, I could write an essay on issues with the way our government is structured and how certain design choices diminish citizen's representation in the government (for example: gerrymandering, first past the post electoral college allocation, and the near-permanence of effectively arbitrary state lines). But even the sum of these do not make our government illegitimate.
> it is a cultural crisis which is very hard to fix
I can agree on that much atleast.
Legitimacy is generally not an objective thing. So there’s not much of a point in arguing here further.
I think he is talking more about where the opportunities are for the talent.
In the past, if you wanted to work on cool shit, government/military had plenty of projects, and research was being done in academia.
Nowdays, if you want to work on cool shit, you go to tech companies.
In the past, if you wanted to work on cool shit, government/military had plenty of projects, and research was being done in academia.
Nowdays, if you want to work on cool shit, you go to tech companies.
I have rarely seen such cloying low quality hyperbolic patronizing comment on top on Hackernews. Well done!
> Everything else - government, media, academia, military - is in decay and has lost all of its legitimacy.
If the government is in decay and losing all its legitimacy, what exactly are you doing here and why are we following laws in the first place?
> Everything else - government, media, academia, military - is in decay and has lost all of its legitimacy.
If the government is in decay and losing all its legitimacy, what exactly are you doing here and why are we following laws in the first place?
i'm not in the US for that reason. and very many people are not following laws.
> trivial stories about evil corporations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon
These are not "trivial stories about evil corporations". They are very real criticisms about the company and its leadership and the lives they have ruined are very real too. To wave your hand and excuse the vast amounts of ethically and morally horrendous things Amazon has done as "trivial stories" is quite frankly one of the most willfully ignorant and disgusting things I've seen posted here - let alone up-voted - in quite some time.
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale
A company that benefits from forced labor camps for fucks sake... that is inspiring to you? Jesus Christ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amazon
These are not "trivial stories about evil corporations". They are very real criticisms about the company and its leadership and the lives they have ruined are very real too. To wave your hand and excuse the vast amounts of ethically and morally horrendous things Amazon has done as "trivial stories" is quite frankly one of the most willfully ignorant and disgusting things I've seen posted here - let alone up-voted - in quite some time.
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale
A company that benefits from forced labor camps for fucks sake... that is inspiring to you? Jesus Christ.
If benefiting from forced labour makes something uninspiring to you, then how is it possible to find anything created in the western world inspiring? Are you sure the clothes you are wearing now, which you are certainly benefiting from, weren't made with forced labour?
Whataboutism is not a valid excuse. I'm not walking around telling people the company making my shirts are inspiring and they should ignore the media. If I find out they are using forced labor, then the reasonable next step is to avoid using the brand and/or try to implement a change by being vocal about the injustice. Which is specifically why these "trivial stories" are so important; they are not just people complaining about minor issues, they are a means to implement a positive change.
I don't mean to say that it's OK for Amazon or anyone else to use forced labour just because it's hard to avoid. I am only saying that it doesn't invalidate the good which they have done either. Just like how perhaps you and I wear clothes made with forced labour, because it is hard to avoid, and it doesn't necessarily invalidate the good we have done. I agree it is important to hold businesses accountable for the practices they use.
[deleted]
I legitimately can't believe you don't even read the links you post. The wiki link states that Amazon has addressed most of its criticisms.
As for China, to sit from the comfort of your own home and demand that a company act benevolent at a cost to itself is simply ridiculous.
As for China, to sit from the comfort of your own home and demand that a company act benevolent at a cost to itself is simply ridiculous.
Is this satire? I honestly can't tell.
If you live perpetually on the internet instead of reality, you will think its satire.
Go around your neighborhood and ask what do people think of Amazons products like Prime with all the shipping advantages and media that comes with it, of amazons return policy, of things like $15 an hour minimum wage, $30/hour of overtime + benefits, and you will find a different story.
Go around your neighborhood and ask what do people think of Amazons products like Prime with all the shipping advantages and media that comes with it, of amazons return policy, of things like $15 an hour minimum wage, $30/hour of overtime + benefits, and you will find a different story.
Ludicrous. Most people, myself included, use and praise Amazon's various services, while at the same time being able to criticise a mega-corp that employs various questionable business practices. In fact, you'd be surprised how critical people actually are of Amazon in my neighbourhood. OP's strange song of Amazon as a shining beacon of light and harbinger of humanity's future - that's what smells of satire.
Nobody is saying Amazon is without fault for making mistakes, however in terms of the stuff that they do with retail, they generally seem to take care of it.
In terms of things like poor worker conditions across the board, you would have a point if you actually had any concrete proof, and no, twitter threads don't count as proof. Not to mention that there is plenty of evidence to support the contrary.
In terms of things like poor worker conditions across the board, you would have a point if you actually had any concrete proof, and no, twitter threads don't count as proof. Not to mention that there is plenty of evidence to support the contrary.
Try talking to your Amazon delivery drivers.
I've yet to meet a single one that has anything positive to say about the company.
I've yet to meet a single one that has anything positive to say about the company.
Not every job has to be enjoyable? They do the work they are hired to do and get paid accordingly, and can quit anytime.
The point is that Amazon does a shitload of good by providing useful services to a lot of customers.
The point is that Amazon does a shitload of good by providing useful services to a lot of customers.
same thought really, can't tell if it's trolling or not, which is weird that we actually consider someone could be serious saying this
As someone who has lost a lot of my physical and mental health, when working at Amazon, color me skeptical.
> "We are going to be Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work."
That being said, if Amazon puts the same resources into this as they put into being customer-centric, it could happen, but I doubt I will be a part of that.
> "We are going to be Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work."
That being said, if Amazon puts the same resources into this as they put into being customer-centric, it could happen, but I doubt I will be a part of that.
Hear hear. Amazon cost me my mental health and relationship. If they're treating us like this, I can't imagine how the folk working at FCs are treated.
Amazon's "Customer Obsession" comes at the expense of their employees.
Also the hypocrisy:
> Despite what we’ve accomplished, it’s clear to me that we need a better vision for our employees’ success. ...We are going to be Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work.
Heh this is coming from a company who refused to release the data from their internal survey about WFH and then made the decision to force everyone come back to the office 5 times/week. I am sure that makes Amazon the best and safest place!
Amazon's "Customer Obsession" comes at the expense of their employees.
Also the hypocrisy:
> Despite what we’ve accomplished, it’s clear to me that we need a better vision for our employees’ success. ...We are going to be Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work.
Heh this is coming from a company who refused to release the data from their internal survey about WFH and then made the decision to force everyone come back to the office 5 times/week. I am sure that makes Amazon the best and safest place!
> Heh this is coming from a company who refused to release the data from their internal survey about WFH and then made the decision to force everyone come back to the office 5 times/week.
Andy Jassy went on record during an interview at the 2020 re:Invent that hinted at this. His concerns were more around Amazon's inventiveness being lost if folks weren't in the same physical space as their peers.
Given the way Amazon operates (a lot of their processes are around "reinvent, rinse, repeat" at pace leading to "go big or go home"), I believe, the leadership concluded that it couldn't be done with a remote-first culture off the cuff. The leadership probably needs more time to figure remote-work out rather than blanket approve for all teams.
From what little I know, Amazon already has a model for "away teams" (distributed teams with some overlapping concerns across geographies) that fits processes required for remote-work within Amazon's operating model but I take it needs to be refined further for it to be applied across all of Amazon.
tldr; Amazon isn't the kind of company to resist change; and so, I am positive that for teams that can function just as well remotely would be allowed to do so eventually whilst the leadership works on improving other processes that works given Amazon's scale, culture, and needs.
Disclosure: ex-AWS.
Andy Jassy went on record during an interview at the 2020 re:Invent that hinted at this. His concerns were more around Amazon's inventiveness being lost if folks weren't in the same physical space as their peers.
Given the way Amazon operates (a lot of their processes are around "reinvent, rinse, repeat" at pace leading to "go big or go home"), I believe, the leadership concluded that it couldn't be done with a remote-first culture off the cuff. The leadership probably needs more time to figure remote-work out rather than blanket approve for all teams.
From what little I know, Amazon already has a model for "away teams" (distributed teams with some overlapping concerns across geographies) that fits processes required for remote-work within Amazon's operating model but I take it needs to be refined further for it to be applied across all of Amazon.
tldr; Amazon isn't the kind of company to resist change; and so, I am positive that for teams that can function just as well remotely would be allowed to do so eventually whilst the leadership works on improving other processes that works given Amazon's scale, culture, and needs.
Disclosure: ex-AWS.
Dont swallow the kool-aid about being customer centric. As a long-term customer I can tell you that ship sailed a few years ago. I try and avoid amazon purchases where possible now.
"let’s value the time savings at $10 per hour, which is conservative"
For guys it may be $10 per hour, but for women who enjoy shopping this may be indeed negative!
For guys it may be $10 per hour, but for women who enjoy shopping this may be indeed negative!
> let’s value the time savings at $10 per hour, which is conservative
I’ll never understand this.
Unless your time can be directly traded for money, it has no monetary value. I think it’s just a trick people use to talk themselves into spending money.
So, in the context of this rah-rah Amazon email, maybe I do get it.
I’ll never understand this.
Unless your time can be directly traded for money, it has no monetary value. I think it’s just a trick people use to talk themselves into spending money.
So, in the context of this rah-rah Amazon email, maybe I do get it.
I’ve always wondered why people talk about their time like this.
Unless I’m taking an hour off of work, that hour is not worth any specific amount of money.
Unless I’m taking an hour off of work, that hour is not worth any specific amount of money.
Opportunity cost can be a big thing. You could be working for money instead of doing something which doesn't increase your wealth.
Like driving around from store to store comparing products and, often, not even coming back with what you went looking for...
It's amazing that now a whole generation has not had that experience (at least to a far, far lesser degree), and probably doesn't realize that that's how it was.
There are some distinct but comparable Internet shopping experiences.
Every so often I think about buying some thingy or other, then get lost in a rabbit hole comparing all the options and sifting through fake reviews.
Sometimes I'll "come to", having wasted 45 minutes, close all the tabs, realising I never actually needed the thing anyway.
Every so often I think about buying some thingy or other, then get lost in a rabbit hole comparing all the options and sifting through fake reviews.
Sometimes I'll "come to", having wasted 45 minutes, close all the tabs, realising I never actually needed the thing anyway.
Using money as a way to evaluate the worth of how you spend your time carries a huge set of biases with it. Should I put a monetary value on playing with my kids so I can justify it against making an extra sales call?
As a metaphor an "opportunity costs" is helpful for thinking about the value of time but it becomes an ideology in itself if you take it literally.
As a metaphor an "opportunity costs" is helpful for thinking about the value of time but it becomes an ideology in itself if you take it literally.
> Should I put a monetary value on playing with my kids so I can justify it against making an extra sales call?
I think we do that implicitly. You would probably love to play with your kid all day but you chose to make some sales calls so you have money to support the family. But you don't make all the sales calls you could make so that you have family time.
So while sure we don't put a monetary number on our hours explicitly, we do have points at which selling our time is and isn't worth it.
I think we do that implicitly. You would probably love to play with your kid all day but you chose to make some sales calls so you have money to support the family. But you don't make all the sales calls you could make so that you have family time.
So while sure we don't put a monetary number on our hours explicitly, we do have points at which selling our time is and isn't worth it.
Most people can’t trade one hour of the time when they’re not working for $10.
Could you, though? Even gig work at $10/hr is not exactly something most people are set up to just opt into for the tiny slices of their day that would otherwise be "trip to grocery store."
I agree that the convenience of Amazon does create value for customers and that it makes sense to try to quantify that somehow; otoh that convenience also manifests negatively in things like unneeded purchases and comparison shopping paralysis. So I think the math on it is indeed a bit suspect.
I agree that the convenience of Amazon does create value for customers and that it makes sense to try to quantify that somehow; otoh that convenience also manifests negatively in things like unneeded purchases and comparison shopping paralysis. So I think the math on it is indeed a bit suspect.
Why take a trip to the grocery store for yourself, when you can shop for someone else, to make $10 that you can use to pay someone else to shop for you?
Or the other side of it, which is to see shopping as an experience and part of life, rather than something purely transactional where you pay money and receive goods.
Though I suppose as big box and discount retail has eaten the lunch of specialty stores, malls, and so on, many of those other benefits (discovery, browsing a curated selection of products, trying things out/on, conversing with a knowledgeable salesperson, etc) have faded somewhat. But on the far end of all this, I'd expect the only brick & mortar stores who are going to "make it" against online retail will be those who can not just promise and deliver on these extras, but also persuade their customers that the extras are worth paying for, whether that's via higher prices, a direct patronage model, or the ability to offer an exclusive paid product not available online.
Though I suppose as big box and discount retail has eaten the lunch of specialty stores, malls, and so on, many of those other benefits (discovery, browsing a curated selection of products, trying things out/on, conversing with a knowledgeable salesperson, etc) have faded somewhat. But on the far end of all this, I'd expect the only brick & mortar stores who are going to "make it" against online retail will be those who can not just promise and deliver on these extras, but also persuade their customers that the extras are worth paying for, whether that's via higher prices, a direct patronage model, or the ability to offer an exclusive paid product not available online.
> Unless your time can be directly traded for money
I believe the common name for this transaction is "work".
I believe the common name for this transaction is "work".
Yes, but the overwhelming majority of people have a work schedule. I can’t trade my time at 7PM for $10 unless I want to find a second job.
Work is not perfectly elastic but time is still by and large tradeable for money.
Maybe get on Uber?
Maybe get on Uber?
> Work is not perfectly elastic but time is still by and large tradeable for money.
Specific results are tradeable for money. I get paid far too much for what I do most of the time, with small windows of specialized action that justifies the waste. It's sloth and inefficacy (due to an inability to measure efficacy) that makes it look like time for money, when it's largely an accounting trick that is more like a payment schedule than a time-for-money.
Specific results are tradeable for money. I get paid far too much for what I do most of the time, with small windows of specialized action that justifies the waste. It's sloth and inefficacy (due to an inability to measure efficacy) that makes it look like time for money, when it's largely an accounting trick that is more like a payment schedule than a time-for-money.
Very few people can choose directly to work more or less to gain accordingly. Even freelancer may have some leeway but it's quite limited.
It’s harder when you’re salaried, but in service sector jobs the success rate from asking your manager for more or fewer hours is usually pretty decent IME. Less so if you’re asking for OT but only because that’s more expensive.
Successful busy people do value time for money. Elon Musk for example. He has very less free time with running multiple business and having so many kids.
Would you want in an hour long line outside McDonald’s for example if they offered a free burger? If yes, then it means you think your time is worth the cost of that burger $3 per hour.
Would you want in an hour long line outside McDonald’s for example if they offered a free burger? If yes, then it means you think your time is worth the cost of that burger $3 per hour.
This is like one of those things unimaginative economists say. Maybe there is no way to pay to cut in line. Maybe it's a small town I can't just drive somewhere else to get food, and I have low blood sugar, and I know I'll get to the front of the line faster than trying to find some other place to buy food. Maybe it's test sample of a new product they have and I'm trying to compete, and the only way to try it is to wait in the long line.
I'm sure there's a dozen more creative explanations for your proposed situation. Just because I'm willing to spend time on something doesn't mean I think my time is worth less than the cost of paying not to spend it.
I'm sure there's a dozen more creative explanations for your proposed situation. Just because I'm willing to spend time on something doesn't mean I think my time is worth less than the cost of paying not to spend it.
> If yes, then it means you think your time is worth the cost of that burger $3 per hour.
What I think my time is worth and what someone is willing to pay me for that time are 2 separate things.
What I think my time is worth and what someone is willing to pay me for that time are 2 separate things.
Yeah, I've heard friends say that they don't do DIY at their house, or fix basic things because the plumber / joiner / whoever earns less than them per hour. SO if they do it themeselves they are losing money...
These people work 9-5 and are paid a salary. I don't get it. Do it after work? Or on a day off. Or weekend...
These people work 9-5 and are paid a salary. I don't get it. Do it after work? Or on a day off. Or weekend...
I could but don't want to spend my spare time changing the brakes on my car. It makes sense to pay someone who can do it efficiently and properly as part of his/her job.
I DIY those jobs exactly because I want the job to be done properly.
Many people don’t have the time or desire to become an expert at every little DIY task.
And those people are easily parted with their money :)
You have to be making a very high income for DIY to not make sense. Paying someone skilled to do my brakes costs over $80/hr. And paying someone unskilled leads to showing up on /r/justrolledintotheshop later. Meanwhile with $600 or so of tools you can do all the basic maintenance for the rest of the car's lifetime (and re-use those tools for home improvement and other jobs). Something simple like brakes is a couple of hours and you can listen to a podcast or audiobook.
You have to be making a very high income for DIY to not make sense. Paying someone skilled to do my brakes costs over $80/hr. And paying someone unskilled leads to showing up on /r/justrolledintotheshop later. Meanwhile with $600 or so of tools you can do all the basic maintenance for the rest of the car's lifetime (and re-use those tools for home improvement and other jobs). Something simple like brakes is a couple of hours and you can listen to a podcast or audiobook.
If I was going to do a lot of DIY stuff, the last thing I would do would be my brakes. I’ve got no problem paying for the professional there.
Brakes are one of the simplest systems on a vehicle (for good reason- simple systems are safer systems). Changing brake pads is literally easier than swapping RAM sticks. Rotors aren't much harder.
Of course, the professional shops invariably overtorque the lug nuts on reassembly and cause damage/issues for the next service...
Of course, the professional shops invariably overtorque the lug nuts on reassembly and cause damage/issues for the next service...
I just skimmed through a youtube video on how to change break pads and of course it turns out to be way more complex and difficult than you describe. This is a common flaw I’ve noticed among people who encourage doing DIY everything, not being able to be objective about the difficulty of it once they’re used to doing it.
I partially agree with your comment, the math is fuzzy, and I'd say that saving 5 minutes per day is absolutely worthless, I don't care about that time, it's a rounding error. There's a cliff when doing this kind of math.
But I prefer to invert this thought experiment - my time isn't worth $x because I intend to use that time for something I can invoice, it's the amount you'd _have_ to pay for my time in order to incentivize me not to spend it walking around the park, watching a movie or whatever but rather do some marketable work.
So yes, I kind of know the value of my time, I'm willing to pay $x not to be bothered with some things, e.g. a washing machine. I don't care about spending +10 minutes when buying some item.
But I prefer to invert this thought experiment - my time isn't worth $x because I intend to use that time for something I can invoice, it's the amount you'd _have_ to pay for my time in order to incentivize me not to spend it walking around the park, watching a movie or whatever but rather do some marketable work.
So yes, I kind of know the value of my time, I'm willing to pay $x not to be bothered with some things, e.g. a washing machine. I don't care about spending +10 minutes when buying some item.
> So yes, I kind of know the value of my time, I'm willing to pay $x not to be bothered with some things, e.g. a washing machine
Yes but that’s an arbitrary value you’re assigning to your time not the the value someone else is willing to give you for your time.
Yes but that’s an arbitrary value you’re assigning to your time not the the value someone else is willing to give you for your time.
I think trying to do actual money math on this is the wrong approach..
I totally get why they did in this letter, and I also think it's a laughable reach to talk about $126B in "value creation" in that way..
But at the same time, I do value my own time, in terms of being free to choose how I spend it.
Ordering from Amazon (or online in general) has absolutely increased that freedom for me. Rather than having to find and drive to a store to get something (and I think 1 hour per trip is a good metric), I spend 3 minutes ordering it, and it arrives at my door the next day.
Meanwhile I spend that hour doing other things that are more valuable to me. I may not acknowledge this each time, but in aggregate it certainly adds up.
So it's not about making more money as much as it's about the value of reducing toil for yourself.
I totally get why they did in this letter, and I also think it's a laughable reach to talk about $126B in "value creation" in that way..
But at the same time, I do value my own time, in terms of being free to choose how I spend it.
Ordering from Amazon (or online in general) has absolutely increased that freedom for me. Rather than having to find and drive to a store to get something (and I think 1 hour per trip is a good metric), I spend 3 minutes ordering it, and it arrives at my door the next day.
Meanwhile I spend that hour doing other things that are more valuable to me. I may not acknowledge this each time, but in aggregate it certainly adds up.
So it's not about making more money as much as it's about the value of reducing toil for yourself.
Time money is not one to one.
You have time currency and you have financial currency. they are not divisible in the same way. they have some additive components though. If I spend 5 hours a week on house work like cleaning and then i use money to hire a person to do it for me i now have 5 hours of time currency.
that time currency could be invested into enjoyment, learning, or for some direct financial currency creation.
this how it works, your likely being overly litteral material making your life worse. as normal people will view you as obtuse vs the wise person you think you are.
You have time currency and you have financial currency. they are not divisible in the same way. they have some additive components though. If I spend 5 hours a week on house work like cleaning and then i use money to hire a person to do it for me i now have 5 hours of time currency.
that time currency could be invested into enjoyment, learning, or for some direct financial currency creation.
this how it works, your likely being overly litteral material making your life worse. as normal people will view you as obtuse vs the wise person you think you are.
The way I've started to look at it is: I don't expect I would be able to make $10 in that hour, but if I could skip doing chore X (cleaning, going to the store, whatever) and instead spend an hour going to the park with my wife and kids, or having lunch with them, or going for a run, that experience would be worth $10 (or probably more) to me. So it's not about trading time for money, it's about paying to trade an unpleasurable experience (e.g. standing in line at the grocery store) for a pleasurable one (drawing or having a hand stand competition with your kids).
I'll offer a corollary to "Create More Than You Consume": Destroy less than you create.
Amazon telling the public to consume less might be dangerous for its revenue.
That's also any government trying to be "green" to address climate change, yet still issuing bonds assuming x% economic growth.
Don't you issue bonds at the market rate? What should a truly green government do instead?
Not issue bonds at all. The only response that could have made a meaningful difference to climate change in a meaningful timeframe was curtailing consumption of fossil fuels and other sources of emissions.
That would necessarily curtail consumption, and hence run counter to all the economic growth assumptions that governments have used to make various promises about expectations of future quality of life.
Bottom line is it’s politically impossible to address climate change. The solution would have been to tax fossil fuels sufficiently so that it would reduce emissions to whatever levels we could have afforded, but that would have caused a lot of pain in the short term with people having to give up a lot of niceties of modern life.
That would necessarily curtail consumption, and hence run counter to all the economic growth assumptions that governments have used to make various promises about expectations of future quality of life.
Bottom line is it’s politically impossible to address climate change. The solution would have been to tax fossil fuels sufficiently so that it would reduce emissions to whatever levels we could have afforded, but that would have caused a lot of pain in the short term with people having to give up a lot of niceties of modern life.
Why not take it a step further.
The US govt. telling all of its citizens to 'consume less', aka don't spend as much in the economy, could cause some level of danger to the country. Or more likely, to the elected officials reelection chances.
The US govt. telling all of its citizens to 'consume less', aka don't spend as much in the economy, could cause some level of danger to the country. Or more likely, to the elected officials reelection chances.
> A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be, 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Eddington#Final_years_and...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Eddington#Final_years_and...
Great read - great company.
> Employees are able to take informal breaks throughout their shifts to stretch, get water, use the rest room, or talk to a manager, all without impacting their performance.
This makes me so sad. This shouldn’t be doing something special for your employees that you get to boast about: it should be a basic human right. Talk about setting the bar low...
This makes me so sad. This shouldn’t be doing something special for your employees that you get to boast about: it should be a basic human right. Talk about setting the bar low...
That was my first thought when I saw this too. I get that addressing bad PR is a sensible option sometimes but it is, in many cases, an outright lie as has been proven.
Even if we assume everything written here is true, like you say, it's nothing to be proud of.
Even if we assume everything written here is true, like you say, it's nothing to be proud of.
Not only are these things nothing to be proud of, they're standard operating procedure for every business I can think of, even ones with otherwise scandalous practices.
While essentially true, I find what leapt to my mind amusing. I pictured a mob enforcer, beating on a guy, but stopping @ 2 hours for his 15 minute break.
Pretty sure the thugs at Guantanamo do just that.
Have you ever thought about assembly-line jobs?
Yes, and even for the ununionized ones, say meat packing facilities, they can get their boss for a word or go to the can when needed. Meat packers and other line jobs have a lot of problems that I've heard about but bathroom breaks and talking to ones bosses would be novel problems to me for those jobs.
Last Week Tonight recently did a show on the meat packing industry. The lack of bathroom breaks was specifically mentioned. https://youtu.be/IhO1FcjDMV4
TIL. Thanks for correcting me on that. Does America need to regulate bathroom breaks to deter companies from behaving like psychopaths or can they figure it out on their own and find some humanity?
Well this is the thing. So many of the "optimizations" and "waste cutting" in the past few decades has been basically cutting 'benefits' that a generation or two ago would've been considered default.
It is encouraging though that at least they are acknowledging that these are stuff employees should have.
It is encouraging though that at least they are acknowledging that these are stuff employees should have.
This still puts Amazon in the upper tier of wage jobs I've held. If you've ever worked on a production line, informal breaks are definitely not an option.
The argument is more for inhumane work conditions and not who's paying extra to justify those conditions. If anything, given Amazon's market position, they should set industry standards and not merely confirm to them. They're trying, but some folks would rather they tried harder.
You cannot really compare a production line to a warehouse. Production lines cannot function when people leave their position at random. On the other hand, there is no pressure to work as fast as you can, because the speed is determined by the production line (and needs to be humane, of course). When you are a picker in a warehouse, the situation is different. The packages can always wait a few minutes. But if I don't want people to piss in bottles, I have to make sure they will not have to compensate for the time lost by working longer/faster.
My grandfather who was born in a poor country and was a farmer through out his life had a better life than these employees. Its a shame that decades (or should I say centuries) of productivity increases in US haven't trickled down in order for these employees to have better options than working at Amazon.
How are you measuring quality of life?
I assume you are saying that his work was easier in some sense, but what about the benefits that accrued from that work and the life environment in general?
I assume you are saying that his work was easier in some sense, but what about the benefits that accrued from that work and the life environment in general?
His work wasn't objectively easier - he worked hard but on his own schedule. To be fair, I am measuring quality of life by what's important to me (rather than any standard metric), but there is a fair bit of overlap. The only weak point was healthcare which has since improved but a healthy lifestyle meant he never needed to visit hospitals.
All things considered, I would rather be him than an Amazon warehouse worker.
An Amazon warehouse worker very much can live up to the extremely high standard of living in the US, perhaps not lavishly, but at this income level can still own a home, have a family, have health care, and so on. Poor farmers in third-world countries watch their babies die from curable diseases.
An amazon worker makes, on average, $15 per hour. That's $31,500 per year. That is just a bit above poverty - the poverty level for a family of 4 is $26,500. You probably are going to have issues saving up for a house, and are going to be lucky to have enough leftover money to actually use the health care. Deductibles of $2-3k are really difficult at that range, especially if you have a family.
In short, you are going to need your spouse to work as well. Then things look up, so long as both of you work. Good luck if you aren't dual income, though.
Folks in the US die preventable deaths, by the way. And a lot of "third world countries" have health care in place, sometimes more fairly widespread than the US.
In short, you are going to need your spouse to work as well. Then things look up, so long as both of you work. Good luck if you aren't dual income, though.
Folks in the US die preventable deaths, by the way. And a lot of "third world countries" have health care in place, sometimes more fairly widespread than the US.
The median US salary for an individual is 30k per year (median family income is 50k). So with an Amazon job an essentially unskilled worker can make more than half of all other Americans.
> The median US salary for an individual is 30k per year (median family income is 50k).
Median family income is ~86k. [0]
Median household income, which is likely what you wanted to cite and is the more common measure, is still much more than 50k, at ~68k. [1]
Median personal income is about 36k. [2]
Median hourly wage is $20.17. [3]
So, no, a $15/hr Amazon worker isn’t making above-median wage and, even if they work 40hr weeks for a full year, isn’t making above-median income.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA646N (nb: “family” for this purpose is defined basically as a household of two or more related by blood, marriage, and/or adoption.)
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=249&eid=25956...
[3] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000
Median family income is ~86k. [0]
Median household income, which is likely what you wanted to cite and is the more common measure, is still much more than 50k, at ~68k. [1]
Median personal income is about 36k. [2]
Median hourly wage is $20.17. [3]
So, no, a $15/hr Amazon worker isn’t making above-median wage and, even if they work 40hr weeks for a full year, isn’t making above-median income.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA646N (nb: “family” for this purpose is defined basically as a household of two or more related by blood, marriage, and/or adoption.)
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=249&eid=25956...
[3] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000
So, at Amazon's entry level, you're making 85% of the median personal income, plus benefits. And that's for their lowest paid FT employees, it can only go up from there. Where's the problem exactly?
fwiw, your numbers are correct, but the 30k figure includes part time workers and is therefore skewed to the downside. Among full time workers, the median annual income is about $51k for men and $48k for women, according to data collected by the BLS.
[deleted]
So? The average is still not much above the poverty level, and as such, still poor.
But look at the low median wages. There are already so many poor people in the US, whats 1 million more?
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
In Bessemer Alabama, where the union effort recently was voted down by the employees, the median annual income is $19,000 and Zillow is full of houses selling for $110k.
$31.5k is a middle class income there and certainly not poverty level.
$31.5k is a middle class income there and certainly not poverty level.
The US poverty line for a family of 4 is 26,xxx. 4-5k above poverty level is not middle class: you are still poor. It isn't like that 5k a year - $416 before taxes - puts you in middle class. You are still getting free lunch, for example. You still qualify for SNAP.
House prices aren't telling you anything: Poor folks have trouble saving up for a down payment and have more issues keeping credit good enough for a house, due to lack of funds to pay things. House prices matter little if you can't actually qualify to buy them.
House prices aren't telling you anything: Poor folks have trouble saving up for a down payment and have more issues keeping credit good enough for a house, due to lack of funds to pay things. House prices matter little if you can't actually qualify to buy them.
Many people don't make enough money to buy a house without a partner's income. This has been the case before amazon existed.
[deleted]
The comment I replied to did not specify this, though. They just said buy a house, which is obviously not always possible.
> An amazon worker makes, on average, $15 per hour.
That’s Amazon’s minimum, not average. That is, every Amazon worker makes more than that.
That’s Amazon’s minimum, not average. That is, every Amazon worker makes more than that.
Not according to these - where do you get your information?:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Warehouse-Worker....
https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Warehouse-Worker....
https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Amazon-Warehouse-Worker....
> An amazon worker makes, on average, $15 per hour. That's $31,500 per year. That is just a bit above poverty - the poverty level for a family of 4 is $26,500.
This is also pretty much at the poverty line if relative poverty is calculated like in most other OECD countries - as 60% of median income. That would be about $3100/month for two adults.
This is also pretty much at the poverty line if relative poverty is calculated like in most other OECD countries - as 60% of median income. That would be about $3100/month for two adults.
Yeah, I know there is some relative stuff there, but figured it was easiest to use the US government's numbers.
[deleted]
You need a bit of perspective. The last part of your sentence hasn't been true in our country in the last 50 years. Working 3 jobs like a robot isn't what I consider high standard of living.
many 3rd world countries have 100% covered free healthcare, "babies die from curable diseases" is what you read in media to feel superior
I think people who live in what have been determined to be the happiest societies would strongly disagree with you here.
Own a home, not likely. Not without at least a second job or income from a spouse or extended family.
This is apartment rental income, not ownership class income.
This is apartment rental income, not ownership class income.
The median monthly mortgage payment in the US is $1200, which means half of them are less than that. Not everywhere is the Bay Area or other super high cost of living areas. (And yes, I realize a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a home)
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive...
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive...
Yeah, when you add up all of the actual costs, you still have to be lucky enough to find an affordable property, have good credit and have significant savings set aside beforehand, and then you'll be living on margins so thin one bad accident or unplanned expense will be catastrophic.
It's certainly not true that a $15/hr wage at an Amazon warehouse alone can "very much" support the "extremely high standard of living in the US" mentioned upthread as a general statement of fact.
It's certainly not true that a $15/hr wage at an Amazon warehouse alone can "very much" support the "extremely high standard of living in the US" mentioned upthread as a general statement of fact.
The problem is the capital. Poor people don't have capital, they live paycheck to paycheck. Nobody is buying any mortgages without a down payment.
Why on earth did this get downvoted?
You know a good portion of this country is fighting to continue working in coal mines, right?
There's only 50,000 people working in coal mines, and if you x10 for related businesses, that's only 500k people out of a country of 330M. I can't imagine this constitutes a "good portion" of this country (USA).
https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/
https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/
Also, those mines are heavily subsidized, basically $80K per year in subsidies / tax breaks per miner. Effectively they're being paid a government wage to keep mining.
What you're seeing here is a large section of the population that likes the idea of coal mining, and willing to spend a lot of tax money to keep that idea alive.
What you're seeing here is a large section of the population that likes the idea of coal mining, and willing to spend a lot of tax money to keep that idea alive.
A large section of those states’ populations maybe. On a national level, they’re only relevant because of their ability to swing votes from one party to the other.
Working in coal mines, and working to support coal mines, aren't entirely the same thing. (More than) Half the country is against government provided healthcare, but that doesn't mean half the country works in private medicine or is immune to disease and injury.
Access to healthcare affects every single person and their community in a pretty obvious way. I don’t see any reason to assume people other than those in the coal industry and maybe their family and friends to care much about it. Maybe a few more for political ideology, but I still can’t see it being a significant amount.
The only reason we hear so much about it is because the states with coal industry hold some swing Senate and Electoral College votes.
The only reason we hear so much about it is because the states with coal industry hold some swing Senate and Electoral College votes.
I am not in the US. But your point is actually in support of my last sentence :). Of course, I do agree that there are a bunch of worse work environments.
Your grandfather - just like mine - was born a farmer and, statistically speaking, likely stayed a farmer his entire life. Today's United States offers the level of social mobility never experienced in any other country or at any other time in human history.
But there's a catch... the social mobility you get here in the US comes with a higher reward but also a higher risk. If you play your cards well, you'll skip quite a few levels and can go from a poor immigrant to a decamillionaire within a single generation. But if you play them poorly, you might not only be left with nothing and become homeless, but you might literally get killed by disease or the police (yes, that happens elsewhere as well, but not within the runner up countries).
So there you have it - what kind of a risk-to-reward ratio do you want? If you're shooting for the moon, come to the US, get a shitty laptop, start learning to code, and get a job in tech (no, you don't have to go to Harvard to get a 6-digit job as a developer). If you'd rather make sure that the chances of the worst case scenario are as low as possible, I'd recommend a socialist democracy like Austria where the government will never let you to drop below a certain level of comfort.
But there's a catch... the social mobility you get here in the US comes with a higher reward but also a higher risk. If you play your cards well, you'll skip quite a few levels and can go from a poor immigrant to a decamillionaire within a single generation. But if you play them poorly, you might not only be left with nothing and become homeless, but you might literally get killed by disease or the police (yes, that happens elsewhere as well, but not within the runner up countries).
So there you have it - what kind of a risk-to-reward ratio do you want? If you're shooting for the moon, come to the US, get a shitty laptop, start learning to code, and get a job in tech (no, you don't have to go to Harvard to get a 6-digit job as a developer). If you'd rather make sure that the chances of the worst case scenario are as low as possible, I'd recommend a socialist democracy like Austria where the government will never let you to drop below a certain level of comfort.
Standard conservative thinking.
Society is meant to be hierarchical, bottom feeders are supposed to serve the small percentile of elites.
This is the natural order of things.
Social support systems for the bottom feeders makes the bottom feeders entitled. Democratic government focus inevitably moves towards social programs which must be pushed back hard by the elite.
Most elites inherit their elite status. We must ignore this and talk about anecdotes of how some software engineer made a lot of money in Silicon valley. Buying bitcoin and TSLA a few years ago is also an undeniable marker of extraordinarily elite thinking, which society must reward.
We must never bluntly state our beliefs but cloak it in other acceptable words, so you don't get canceled by the SJWs and bottom feeders.
The naturally superior and their offspring will and must be allowed to ascend the social hierarchy.
BTW, conservatives have larger amygdala. Anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs
Society is meant to be hierarchical, bottom feeders are supposed to serve the small percentile of elites.
This is the natural order of things.
Social support systems for the bottom feeders makes the bottom feeders entitled. Democratic government focus inevitably moves towards social programs which must be pushed back hard by the elite.
Most elites inherit their elite status. We must ignore this and talk about anecdotes of how some software engineer made a lot of money in Silicon valley. Buying bitcoin and TSLA a few years ago is also an undeniable marker of extraordinarily elite thinking, which society must reward.
We must never bluntly state our beliefs but cloak it in other acceptable words, so you don't get canceled by the SJWs and bottom feeders.
The naturally superior and their offspring will and must be allowed to ascend the social hierarchy.
BTW, conservatives have larger amygdala. Anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs
The US objectively has a low amount of social mobility compared to other countries
This, as usual with the US, is an extremely individualistic point of view on the topic. The problem is that the majority of people are bottom feeders and stay bottom feeders all their lives. Of course, if you play all your cards well and the planets are aligned you might end up better than somewhere else, the drawback is that everyone under a certain threshold will eat shit until they die
> I'd recommend a socialist democracy like Austria
The vast majority of people can't just "chose" to live where you recommend them to go.
You're basically describing the proverbial american dream, it concerns an unbelievably small portion of the people living in the US, imho it's not too far from straight up propaganda to keep the gears turning, ie "I might have to work 2 full time jobs now but I'll work harder and in 5 years I'll make it". It even is a double edged sword, companies like Amazon or Uber made it _because_ they're allowed to stomp on bottom feeders, it's a game with a minority of extreme winner and a majority of losers.
People don't want "social mobility", they want a decent life and access to basic things like medicine, affordable housing, toilet breaks no matter where they are on the social ladder... for every sociopathic wantrepreneur who wants to make it big you have thousands of family who just want to not be treated like cattle
> I'd recommend a socialist democracy like Austria
The vast majority of people can't just "chose" to live where you recommend them to go.
You're basically describing the proverbial american dream, it concerns an unbelievably small portion of the people living in the US, imho it's not too far from straight up propaganda to keep the gears turning, ie "I might have to work 2 full time jobs now but I'll work harder and in 5 years I'll make it". It even is a double edged sword, companies like Amazon or Uber made it _because_ they're allowed to stomp on bottom feeders, it's a game with a minority of extreme winner and a majority of losers.
People don't want "social mobility", they want a decent life and access to basic things like medicine, affordable housing, toilet breaks no matter where they are on the social ladder... for every sociopathic wantrepreneur who wants to make it big you have thousands of family who just want to not be treated like cattle
I mean... I am a living proof that you can just move to a place like Austria. And yes, we were a family of 4, quite poor, and had nobody to turn to for help. My sister loves it there, I didn’t so I moved to the US. If we were able to make those decisions, why is it that other people can’t? I know the usual excuses, but we’re taking about life-transformational decisions that IMO are worth making a few sacrifices for (eg: moving kids out of school, not seeing your parents for an extended amount of time, living in a tiny studio apartment, etc). Not recommending it to most people, but I would push back on the idea that it’s impossible.
Amazing for you!! I cannot even get a visitor visa to EU without jumping through hoops. When I moved to US, I had to make the same sacrifices. However, I also accept and understand the privileges I had that allowed me to make the transition. For most of the world, passports are a burden that will not allow them to get to a better life.
It's not impossible, but it's statistically unlikely.
> If we were able to make those decisions, why is it that other people can’t?
Because we all come from widely different backgrounds, families, education, get different opportunities, make different choices, &c. It's easy to compare people's lives to our own stories but you can't sum up everything with "if I made it everyone can make it", there are so many variables, the majority of which we can't understand before going through them ourselves.
Regardless of that, if I was part of the 10% or 15% of American below the poverty threshold and you told me "just move to Austria, anyone can make it" I don't think I would take it well
Of course you'll always find people who manage to drastically change their lives, but I'm personally not really interested in the edge case. Btw I started searching about social mobility and found this, which supports social mobility in the US is pretty poor https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-social-mobility-...
> If we were able to make those decisions, why is it that other people can’t?
Because we all come from widely different backgrounds, families, education, get different opportunities, make different choices, &c. It's easy to compare people's lives to our own stories but you can't sum up everything with "if I made it everyone can make it", there are so many variables, the majority of which we can't understand before going through them ourselves.
Regardless of that, if I was part of the 10% or 15% of American below the poverty threshold and you told me "just move to Austria, anyone can make it" I don't think I would take it well
Of course you'll always find people who manage to drastically change their lives, but I'm personally not really interested in the edge case. Btw I started searching about social mobility and found this, which supports social mobility in the US is pretty poor https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-social-mobility-...
Yeah that is not really true at all. Your grandfather had it objectively worse overall.
It's in the letter because they are accused of not doing it.
They're not bragging, they're saying it to counter the media narrative about them.
I think a lot of white collar workers (ie. journalists and people reading certain papers) are shocked to find out that warehouse/blue collar jobs are hard and not paid great. It says more about the reader than anything else.. I'd wager that conditions are a lot better at Amazon than at some random warehouse where people are working out of the media spotlight.
Also, if you have over 1 million employees, you can always find plenty of stories of things that went wrong, kind of like in a 1-million population city there's always plenty of stuff going on.
I think a lot of white collar workers (ie. journalists and people reading certain papers) are shocked to find out that warehouse/blue collar jobs are hard and not paid great. It says more about the reader than anything else.. I'd wager that conditions are a lot better at Amazon than at some random warehouse where people are working out of the media spotlight.
Also, if you have over 1 million employees, you can always find plenty of stories of things that went wrong, kind of like in a 1-million population city there's always plenty of stuff going on.
I know people personally who work at a Best Buy warehouse. Their conditions are NOTHING like Amazon's. This isn't a "all warehouse jobs just suck" issue, it's an Amazon issue.
Working conditions in the US are a lot better than in Africa or the poorest post-USSR countries.What's your point?
1st world countries should not boast about basic human rights.That should be the standard.
1st world countries should not boast about basic human rights.That should be the standard.
I worked in a warehouse in Africa, we had informal breaks, it was a really tiring job
> We’re developing new automated staffing schedules that use sophisticated algorithms to rotate employees among jobs that use different muscle-tendon groups to decrease repetitive motion and help protect employees from MSD risks.
Glossing over the "sophisticated algorithms" part, this is a welcome read and it seems to be a great way of limiting healthcare costs for new hires, but I am concerned at how "rotational" are such jobs surely manual warehouse work would be pretty similar in muscle groups used?
Glossing over the "sophisticated algorithms" part, this is a welcome read and it seems to be a great way of limiting healthcare costs for new hires, but I am concerned at how "rotational" are such jobs surely manual warehouse work would be pretty similar in muscle groups used?
> but I am concerned at how "rotational" are such jobs surely manual warehouse work would be pretty similar in muscle groups used?
It's outside of our imagination to assume there are different stations? Surely some walk more, some sort more things, some may even pick up heavy things.
Edit:
> Glossing over the "sophisticated algorithms" part
I also want to point out that your quotes around sophisticated algorithms are unkind. Scheduling optimization base on N parameters isn't a trivial problem [0], definitely not something anyone would bat an eye at calling a sophisticated algorithm.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling_(computing)
It's outside of our imagination to assume there are different stations? Surely some walk more, some sort more things, some may even pick up heavy things.
Edit:
> Glossing over the "sophisticated algorithms" part
I also want to point out that your quotes around sophisticated algorithms are unkind. Scheduling optimization base on N parameters isn't a trivial problem [0], definitely not something anyone would bat an eye at calling a sophisticated algorithm.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling_(computing)
> It's outside of our imagination to assume there are different stations
No but my naivety thought there would be more automation in place to reduce walking, sorting and picking up heavy things.
Granted I have not worked in a fulfilment center and my impressions are solely based on amazon's own material but they put out jobs for operatives that just stand there all day sorting small packets, moving from this to sorting incoming large pallets sounds like it would do more damage!
Edit: Thanks for the incorrect wikipedia page, how does compute resources come into play here? I'm not taking anything away from software that solves the nurses roster problem or applies simulated annealing, just merely quoting the source.
No but my naivety thought there would be more automation in place to reduce walking, sorting and picking up heavy things.
Granted I have not worked in a fulfilment center and my impressions are solely based on amazon's own material but they put out jobs for operatives that just stand there all day sorting small packets, moving from this to sorting incoming large pallets sounds like it would do more damage!
Edit: Thanks for the incorrect wikipedia page, how does compute resources come into play here? I'm not taking anything away from software that solves the nurses roster problem or applies simulated annealing, just merely quoting the source.
>but they put out jobs for operatives that just stand there all day sorting small packets, moving from this to sorting incoming large pallets sounds like it would do more damage
Amazon's expectation is that every associate will be physically capable of doing any job necessary in the FC at a moments' notice, as business needs demand. I've seen complaints by associates that being sent to new roles like picking or palettes is painful, but unless they have an actual injury and medical waiver, Amazon doesn't make exceptions. I've stowed, picked, counted, run totes, wrapped boxes, stacked palettes, done many things in an Amazon warehouse, I know how they operate. Unless you're bleeding on the ground, you're expected to suck it up and deal.
You have to remember, the purpose of automation isn't to decrease stresses on employees, it's to increase their productivity and the value that can be extracted from them per hour. When it's still cheaper and cost efficient to have a meat-robot do the work, they'll do that work.
Amazon's expectation is that every associate will be physically capable of doing any job necessary in the FC at a moments' notice, as business needs demand. I've seen complaints by associates that being sent to new roles like picking or palettes is painful, but unless they have an actual injury and medical waiver, Amazon doesn't make exceptions. I've stowed, picked, counted, run totes, wrapped boxes, stacked palettes, done many things in an Amazon warehouse, I know how they operate. Unless you're bleeding on the ground, you're expected to suck it up and deal.
You have to remember, the purpose of automation isn't to decrease stresses on employees, it's to increase their productivity and the value that can be extracted from them per hour. When it's still cheaper and cost efficient to have a meat-robot do the work, they'll do that work.
> No but my naivety thought there would be more automation in place to reduce walking, sorting and picking up heavy things.
Having worked in a non-Amazon fulfillment center, I’m amazed at the automation they do have.
Picking and packing product once it’s in a warehouse isn’t the difficult part. Unloading and loading the shipping containers, in my experience, is far more difficult.
To maximize space in shipping containers they can be packed floor to ceiling. I think about 22kg was the maximum weight of product I was unloading. Picture beverages stacked floor to ceiling in a 50 foot trailer. The optimal lifting position will happen for a small percentage of the boxes moved. You’re on your toes trying to pull product from above your head, then you’ll be bending over to pick product off the ground.
Palletizing the product for transportation within the warehouse also puts you in disadvantaged positions.
There will be some token training on how to lift correctly, but you will quickly be falling behind on productivity.
To achieve your targets there will be times when you’ll be lifting two boxes together. Or stacking them to be more efficient.
If you’re lucky and they see you working hard, they may give you a rest day by putting you on light duty once every two weeks. If you piss off the scheduler, enjoy your heavy rotations.
It’s probably a good thing to reduce the human element assigning this kind of work.
Also don’t forget not all product (e.g., heavy exercise equipment) arrives with intact packaging. Sometimes you’ll have to move this out by hand when a box falls apart and then repackage the material.
When you’re picking product there is often powered pallet jacks to get from point a to point b, but you end up taking short cuts and jumping off before the machine has reached a complete stop.
This work is still better than doing rebar or construction. At least you get a roof overhead and stay out of the elements.
People who are young and need a job will do dumb things to stay employed.
Having worked in a non-Amazon fulfillment center, I’m amazed at the automation they do have.
Picking and packing product once it’s in a warehouse isn’t the difficult part. Unloading and loading the shipping containers, in my experience, is far more difficult.
To maximize space in shipping containers they can be packed floor to ceiling. I think about 22kg was the maximum weight of product I was unloading. Picture beverages stacked floor to ceiling in a 50 foot trailer. The optimal lifting position will happen for a small percentage of the boxes moved. You’re on your toes trying to pull product from above your head, then you’ll be bending over to pick product off the ground.
Palletizing the product for transportation within the warehouse also puts you in disadvantaged positions.
There will be some token training on how to lift correctly, but you will quickly be falling behind on productivity.
To achieve your targets there will be times when you’ll be lifting two boxes together. Or stacking them to be more efficient.
If you’re lucky and they see you working hard, they may give you a rest day by putting you on light duty once every two weeks. If you piss off the scheduler, enjoy your heavy rotations.
It’s probably a good thing to reduce the human element assigning this kind of work.
Also don’t forget not all product (e.g., heavy exercise equipment) arrives with intact packaging. Sometimes you’ll have to move this out by hand when a box falls apart and then repackage the material.
When you’re picking product there is often powered pallet jacks to get from point a to point b, but you end up taking short cuts and jumping off before the machine has reached a complete stop.
This work is still better than doing rebar or construction. At least you get a roof overhead and stay out of the elements.
People who are young and need a job will do dumb things to stay employed.
This also has the [side?]effect of preventing unionization: If you you have a different workplace every x weeks, it's hard to build meaningful relationships with your coworkers, which often are the basis of organizing for better working conditions. Other companies already implementented this more overtly for this reason, e.g. DHL (at least) in Germany.
It's obvious nonsense to kick the can down the road and deflect criticism by saying "we have a new system, it will take years to prove that it's still physically harmful".
This might be the most impactful letter Jeff has written so far. I admire Jeff for being a truly original leader and personally find a lot of his thinking inspiring. I know that HN fervently hates Jeff and Amazon - and Amazon definitely has to improve a thing or two - , but I'd challenge the haters to find another corporate leader who is not only willing to commit to such radical visions like becoming Earth's Best Employer and Earth's Safest Place to Work, but actually drive his leadership to deliver on these promises. The $15 minimum wage, the Climate Pledge (Amazon being the largest corporate buyer of renewable energy in the world), and Jeff's personal investments of $10 billion to fight climate change are - in my opinion - proof that Jeff is not entirely the evil capitalist that folks on HN think he is. I'm sure that there will be people who will comment that the $15 minimum wage was only implemented because it will harm competitors, the Climate Pledge was created to appeal to ESG-driven investors, and his personal investments are just tax savings. But you have to acknowledge that he is trying to use his power and influence to have a positive impact on the world.
I'd be really curious to hear from the folks on HN who are so deeply critical of Amazon and Jeff: do you see that he's at least trying and putting in money and effort? Or do you really believe that he is the devil manifest on Earth? If so, please cite one example of a living corporate leader running a company of Amazon's size who you consider to be a "good" leader. I'm genuinely curious.
I'd be really curious to hear from the folks on HN who are so deeply critical of Amazon and Jeff: do you see that he's at least trying and putting in money and effort? Or do you really believe that he is the devil manifest on Earth? If so, please cite one example of a living corporate leader running a company of Amazon's size who you consider to be a "good" leader. I'm genuinely curious.
I used to work there and left on a bad note. So, I'm not a fanboy (anymore).
There are a few things Amazon is doing better than industry standard, but because of their scale the things they don't do well have a huge impact and I believe that also increases their responsibility.
I would say "We are going to be Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work" is a complete 180, so I believe it, when I see it. It will take years of hard work and culture shift, if they are actually serious about it.
There are a few things Amazon is doing better than industry standard, but because of their scale the things they don't do well have a huge impact and I believe that also increases their responsibility.
I would say "We are going to be Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work" is a complete 180, so I believe it, when I see it. It will take years of hard work and culture shift, if they are actually serious about it.
[deleted]
Could you provide a bit of context? What's the point you're trying to make with this video? I'd argue that comparing work at Amazon to slave labour is doing a disservice to the victims of slavery and their descendants.
[deleted]
I like that appeal to emotion early on about everyone's retirement and savings tied to AMZN stock. Shit- that's more evidence that they're too huge.
Tech companies are the only inspiring institutions that remain in America today. Everything else - government, media, academia, military - is in decay and has lost all of its legitimacy.
And amidst that sole set of institutions that inspire, thrive and lead us into the future, Amazon is one of the most inspiring.
Jeff, thank you for helping prove that humans can create great things.