Amazon to pay full college tuition for its front-line employees(aboutamazon.com)
aboutamazon.com
Amazon to pay full college tuition for its front-line employees
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/amazon-to-pay-full-college-tuition-for-front-line-employees
278 comments
"Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good.” - Oscar Wilde
Just as America has the bizarre situation of healthcare being tied to employment, we may end up in the same situation for education, where becoming an indentured servant for Amazon or Starbucks takes the place of what should be a public education service.
Just as America has the bizarre situation of healthcare being tied to employment, we may end up in the same situation for education, where becoming an indentured servant for Amazon or Starbucks takes the place of what should be a public education service.
> Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves ... the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good
Exactly, most people don't get this. This is exactly why I am vicious, cruel, and unkind to the employees of my small business - it seems counter intuitive, but I'm actually doing them the least harm this way, and so I'm actually optimizing for their long term happiness. They should be thanking me. /logic
Exactly, most people don't get this. This is exactly why I am vicious, cruel, and unkind to the employees of my small business - it seems counter intuitive, but I'm actually doing them the least harm this way, and so I'm actually optimizing for their long term happiness. They should be thanking me. /logic
Pretty sure the quote has something to do with the prolongation of the status quo (and therefore holding back improvement) instead of the individual slave-owner being better/worse.
I don't think a poet/playwright would ever roll with "the expected utility is less due to preventing a change to the status quo" instead of the original quote.
I don't think a poet/playwright would ever roll with "the expected utility is less due to preventing a change to the status quo" instead of the original quote.
Plus, it's Oscar Wilde. He's more tongue-in-cheek than the champion of a lengua eating contest.
I mean it’s cute quip but this isn’t what that quote means and you know that.
[From the perspective of someone trying to abolish slavery] kind slavers are the worst because they make the situation just tolerable enough that people aren’t motivated to change the system.
[From the perspective of an individual slave] kind slavers are the best because they suffer the least.
Kind slavers force a system settle on a local minimum of suffering rather than a global one.
[From the perspective of someone trying to abolish slavery] kind slavers are the worst because they make the situation just tolerable enough that people aren’t motivated to change the system.
[From the perspective of an individual slave] kind slavers are the best because they suffer the least.
Kind slavers force a system settle on a local minimum of suffering rather than a global one.
> [From the perspective of someone trying to abolish slavery] kind slavers are the worst because they make the situation just tolerable enough that people aren’t motivated to change the system.
Who says kind slavers weren't also helping to change the system? It's a pretty big assumption that all kind slavers were only being kind to keep their slaves from being uppity. Re: George Washington
Who says kind slavers weren't also helping to change the system? It's a pretty big assumption that all kind slavers were only being kind to keep their slaves from being uppity. Re: George Washington
I think the assumption is that if kind slave owner wanted to help change the system, they would probably start by freeing their own slaves.
> they would probably start by freeing their own slaves.
Depends on the meaning of "own". Quoting from https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/martha...
> After George and Martha Washington married in 1759, she took many of these people with her to Mount Vernon. As property of the Custis estate, they could not legally be freed or sold, and were inherited by the Custis heirs upon Martha Washington’s death.
In this case, Martha Washington owned the rights to the labor of the people involved until she died, but did not own the people themselves; the Custis estate did.
(Now what she would have done if she did own them outright is a separate issue, of course. Nothing suggests she would have freed them.)
Depends on the meaning of "own". Quoting from https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/martha...
> After George and Martha Washington married in 1759, she took many of these people with her to Mount Vernon. As property of the Custis estate, they could not legally be freed or sold, and were inherited by the Custis heirs upon Martha Washington’s death.
In this case, Martha Washington owned the rights to the labor of the people involved until she died, but did not own the people themselves; the Custis estate did.
(Now what she would have done if she did own them outright is a separate issue, of course. Nothing suggests she would have freed them.)
The capital was Philadelphia while Washington was president. Philly had a law that slaves who resided there for a year were freed, so Washington established a rotation system to make sure he had slaves around for help but didn't have to free them.
So to be clear, there were two separate sets of slaves involved:
1) The ones owned by George Washington himself. He did not free these while alive; he did have a will that said that once Martha died they were free. That is, he did not free them until he (1) made use of their labor himself and (2) ensured that what he viewed as his financial obligations to Martha upon his death were satisfied. Obviously this is not a hard-line abolitionist stance, and I do wonder what he would have done if he had living children when he died. As it was, he just had living step-grandchildren (kids of Martha's son from her previous marriage; the son had died earlier and George and Martha had raised his kids).
2) The ones owned by the Custis estate. Those could not be freed unilaterally by either George or Martha. They were inherited by the above-mentioned step-grandchildren when Martha died.
What would happen for people in set 2 if they were in Philadelphia for more than a year is a legal question I don't have an answer for... The most plausible way to reconcile the various legal bits I can think of is that they would be free but then Martha (or George? family property law in 1700s Virginia is not my strong suit) would owe restitution to the Custis estate for the lost value or something like that?
1) The ones owned by George Washington himself. He did not free these while alive; he did have a will that said that once Martha died they were free. That is, he did not free them until he (1) made use of their labor himself and (2) ensured that what he viewed as his financial obligations to Martha upon his death were satisfied. Obviously this is not a hard-line abolitionist stance, and I do wonder what he would have done if he had living children when he died. As it was, he just had living step-grandchildren (kids of Martha's son from her previous marriage; the son had died earlier and George and Martha had raised his kids).
2) The ones owned by the Custis estate. Those could not be freed unilaterally by either George or Martha. They were inherited by the above-mentioned step-grandchildren when Martha died.
What would happen for people in set 2 if they were in Philadelphia for more than a year is a legal question I don't have an answer for... The most plausible way to reconcile the various legal bits I can think of is that they would be free but then Martha (or George? family property law in 1700s Virginia is not my strong suit) would owe restitution to the Custis estate for the lost value or something like that?
I looked up this law, fwiw: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pennst01.asp . The actual provision is that non-residents of Pennsylvania could not keep slaves in the state for longer than 6 months. Unless those non-residents were "members of congress, foreign ministers [or] consuls".
The rules were considerably more complicated for Pennsylvania residents; the law basically grandfathered in existing slaves owned by Pennsylvanians and provided for a decades-long slow abolition as the children of existing slaves reached the age of 28.
It's interesting that the law exempted members of congress (and representatives of other countries, possibly for similar reasons) but not the president.
The rules were considerably more complicated for Pennsylvania residents; the law basically grandfathered in existing slaves owned by Pennsylvanians and provided for a decades-long slow abolition as the children of existing slaves reached the age of 28.
It's interesting that the law exempted members of congress (and representatives of other countries, possibly for similar reasons) but not the president.
Wow.
That's actually a thing people unironically believe. it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
I used to say, "It's always darkest before the dawn, so bring on the darkness." My younger self is quite happy with the way things are going, but my present self thinks my younger self is a fool.
That is left-wing accelerationism, not liberal-accelerationism or right-wing accelerationism. Important distinction cause they are completely different.
The point is that it's a false choice, not that you should enthusiastically lean into one side of it or the other.
You didn't understand the argument, it is about the carrot and stick and how the carrot can materialize. The style is a bit offensive to get people to maybe look for the horizon...
> viscous
Is this typo becoming more common? OP, why would you be sticky and slow moving around these people?
Is this typo becoming more common? OP, why would you be sticky and slow moving around these people?
>where becoming an indentured servant for Amazon
But that's literally not what's happening?
>Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years.
But that's literally not what's happening?
>Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years.
Yeah, but you'd be given room and board rather than a wage. It's indentured servitude with extra steps.
Is all employment "indentured servitude with extra step" since the wages from your employment is used to pay for "room and board"?
I'd argue if you don't have any money left over after paying food and board (and need food stamps), it's functionally the same as indentured servitude. So, not all employment is like this; but only those jobs that do not pay a living wage.
The difference is that you can't decide to fuck off (eg. go backpacking or live with your parents) whenever you feel like it if you're an indentured servant. Furthermore, "food and board" is an imperfect metric, because even though it may seem essential, it has a lot of discretionary components built in. For instance, buying organic or ordering takeout for "food", or getting a luxury condo or a nice school district for "housing". I'm not saying everyone working on amazon living paycheck to paycheck is because they ordered ubereats every night and live in a luxury condo, but it's something to keep in mind when we're narrowing down what exactly "indentured servitude with extra steps" means.
> The difference is that you can't decide to fuck off (eg. go backpacking or live with your parents) whenever you feel like it if you're an indentured servant.
Do you honestly think people willingly work at McJobs that still require them to live on food stamps when they have better options available to them, like living with their parents?!
Amazon's warehouse workers are not buying organic takeout or getting luxury condominiums, they are buying the cheapest (unhealthy) food and living in the cheapest parts of town. What you asking to keep in mind sounds a lot like a rehash of Reagan's incorrect "welfare queen" characterization from the 70's. Or more recently: "Why do poor people need a smartphone for?"
Do you honestly think people willingly work at McJobs that still require them to live on food stamps when they have better options available to them, like living with their parents?!
Amazon's warehouse workers are not buying organic takeout or getting luxury condominiums, they are buying the cheapest (unhealthy) food and living in the cheapest parts of town. What you asking to keep in mind sounds a lot like a rehash of Reagan's incorrect "welfare queen" characterization from the 70's. Or more recently: "Why do poor people need a smartphone for?"
> Do you honestly think people willingly work at McJobs that still require them to live on food stamps when they have better options available to them, like living with their parents?!
Just less than an hour ago I was listening to the radio and they were interviewing someone who literally fits this description: They voluntarily left their parent's house and worked at McDonalds for a bunch of years. Not going to school or anything. Living their own life.
I also personally know someone who did this. Comes from an upper middle class family. Not kicked out of the house or anything. Just didn't like the small town he was in. Moved to another state and worked at McDonald's while doing some art projects when not working.
People do this. All. The. Time.
People here on HN (and especially in the comments for this submission) are showing how way out of touch their world view is from reality. How many of you here even know any Amazon warehouse workers? I know two, and talking to them has impacted my view of Amazon.
Anti-disclaimer: I don't work for Amazon and prefer not to buy from them.
Just less than an hour ago I was listening to the radio and they were interviewing someone who literally fits this description: They voluntarily left their parent's house and worked at McDonalds for a bunch of years. Not going to school or anything. Living their own life.
I also personally know someone who did this. Comes from an upper middle class family. Not kicked out of the house or anything. Just didn't like the small town he was in. Moved to another state and worked at McDonald's while doing some art projects when not working.
People do this. All. The. Time.
People here on HN (and especially in the comments for this submission) are showing how way out of touch their world view is from reality. How many of you here even know any Amazon warehouse workers? I know two, and talking to them has impacted my view of Amazon.
Anti-disclaimer: I don't work for Amazon and prefer not to buy from them.
>Do you honestly think people willingly work at McJobs that still require them to live on food stamps when they have better options available to them, like living with their parents?!
Living with their parents is an alternate option, that may or may not be the better option. Maybe it is cheaper and has comparable living standards, but at the same time it might also be in the middle of nowhere. The point is that there's a choice available, which isn't the case for indentured servitude.
>Amazon's warehouse workers are not buying organic takeout or getting luxury condominiums [...]
I specifically said they're not all doing it. I brought that up not to disparage the plight of the average amazon worker, but to point out just factoring in room and board fails to account for certain cases.
Living with their parents is an alternate option, that may or may not be the better option. Maybe it is cheaper and has comparable living standards, but at the same time it might also be in the middle of nowhere. The point is that there's a choice available, which isn't the case for indentured servitude.
>Amazon's warehouse workers are not buying organic takeout or getting luxury condominiums [...]
I specifically said they're not all doing it. I brought that up not to disparage the plight of the average amazon worker, but to point out just factoring in room and board fails to account for certain cases.
[deleted]
Comparing Amazon's fulfillment center's condition to actual slavery on a thread about them offering free tuition to their worker might be the most out of touch HN reply I have seen in a while.
You do understand that these people, regardless of your opinion on how the government should handle education at a state and federal level, will actually benefit from this move? It's not some kind of dystopian agreement, usually the employer pays for your education and you must stay there for ~2 years or reimburse what the employer paid. That's it, you can leave, you can go work anywhere.
You do understand that these people, regardless of your opinion on how the government should handle education at a state and federal level, will actually benefit from this move? It's not some kind of dystopian agreement, usually the employer pays for your education and you must stay there for ~2 years or reimburse what the employer paid. That's it, you can leave, you can go work anywhere.
> Comparing Amazon's fulfillment center's condition to actual slavery on a thread about them offering free tuition to their worker might be the most out of touch HN reply I have seen in a while.
https://imgur.com/a/BqPzT
https://imgur.com/a/BqPzT
I understand what you are hinting at, but it's not just the quote, the commenter I replied to wrote:
> we may end up in the same situation for education, where becoming an indentured servant for Amazon or Starbucks takes the place of what should be a public education service.
Where "indentured servitudes" means "a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years". Yes there is a difference with actual slavery, but this is still very much the parallel he was drawing.
Ergo I feel very comfortable saying that this is a very out-of-touch comparison.
> we may end up in the same situation for education, where becoming an indentured servant for Amazon or Starbucks takes the place of what should be a public education service.
Where "indentured servitudes" means "a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years". Yes there is a difference with actual slavery, but this is still very much the parallel he was drawing.
Ergo I feel very comfortable saying that this is a very out-of-touch comparison.
You're conflating "being kind" with "empowering" and it causes your point to collapse onto itself like a black hole. An education is a means to escape slavery or indentured servitude, so comparing it to the kindness of some plantation owners is ridiculous.
We already kinda do with the military; no other options for high paying work? Join the military for a few years, let them pay for school if you survive.
But, Oscar Wilde's quote here is partially right at the societal level, and absolutely wrong on the individual level. Both can be true. Amazon isn't to be lauded as a company for something that is, ultimately, a competitive advantage, in a landscape they don't seek to change, but the change itself can be lauded as a good one in that it's something they can control
But, Oscar Wilde's quote here is partially right at the societal level, and absolutely wrong on the individual level. Both can be true. Amazon isn't to be lauded as a company for something that is, ultimately, a competitive advantage, in a landscape they don't seek to change, but the change itself can be lauded as a good one in that it's something they can control
> ...we may end up in the same situation for education, where becoming an indentured servant for Amazon or Starbucks takes the place of what should be a public education service.
I'm amazed at this criticism. College is and was difficult for many people to handle because it's expensive. It's not lack of will or ability to find time.
I got my bachelor's degree while I was serving in the US Air Force at 40 hours plus per week. Yeah, it was a bit of a grunt. But I got the degree. I'm still grateful for their help in funding tuition as well as the flexibility to attend evening classes. I think most people in that situation would feel the same.
I'm amazed at this criticism. College is and was difficult for many people to handle because it's expensive. It's not lack of will or ability to find time.
I got my bachelor's degree while I was serving in the US Air Force at 40 hours plus per week. Yeah, it was a bit of a grunt. But I got the degree. I'm still grateful for their help in funding tuition as well as the flexibility to attend evening classes. I think most people in that situation would feel the same.
A brilliant and helpful quote. Reminds me of the King quote about white moderates. It's a bit different, but what they have in common is emphasizing that when you "do good" on top of a foundation of fundamental injustice you do the most damage. Because you appeal to the most reachable minds (and therefore the most needed as supporters, the most precious resource) and implore them to support the status quo instead of helping.
Is there any path to a perfect world system within one lifetime? I’d be extremely skeptical. If you agree there isn’t, then no matter what the world looks like during our lifetime, it will be imperfect. It will be the wrong system.
The problem with views like the ones being expressed in this thread is that they suggest at every moment that the thing we need is revolution. That there is no way to advance an imperfect system by doing good. And after any revolution, you’ll still be left with an imperfect foundation, so you’re still forbidden from doing good, and you need another revolution.
It is insightful, pointing out where good intentions cause an imperfect status quo to perpetuate longer than it otherwise would. But the status quo will always be imperfect, so we must find ways of advancing it that don’t force everyone through a lower point in order to reach the next maxima (which is sorta what you do when you encourage all those with good intentions to stand down).
Not that I’m saying all revolutions past weren’t valid. When you lose the freedom of movement that allows people to seek out higher maxima, then the only way forward actually is revolution.
The problem with views like the ones being expressed in this thread is that they suggest at every moment that the thing we need is revolution. That there is no way to advance an imperfect system by doing good. And after any revolution, you’ll still be left with an imperfect foundation, so you’re still forbidden from doing good, and you need another revolution.
It is insightful, pointing out where good intentions cause an imperfect status quo to perpetuate longer than it otherwise would. But the status quo will always be imperfect, so we must find ways of advancing it that don’t force everyone through a lower point in order to reach the next maxima (which is sorta what you do when you encourage all those with good intentions to stand down).
Not that I’m saying all revolutions past weren’t valid. When you lose the freedom of movement that allows people to seek out higher maxima, then the only way forward actually is revolution.
Society could look for ways to fund education, as it is quite a sensible investment into the future. This isn't utopia or a perfect world, this is reality in a lot of places.
Countries that have implemented free public education still have contacts to the industry of course and their involvement is under scrutiny for several reasons.
I don't believe you need a revolution, you just need better policy makers. I understand why that feels impossible for many.
Countries that have implemented free public education still have contacts to the industry of course and their involvement is under scrutiny for several reasons.
I don't believe you need a revolution, you just need better policy makers. I understand why that feels impossible for many.
The words "perfect" and "revolution" do not appear anywhere in my comment.
It's do-nothing bullshit.
Do good on top a foundation of fundamental injustice? I'm sorry, do you have any other foundations laying around? I surveyed 5000 years of written history and couldn't find any.
The options are try to do some good or don't.
Do good on top a foundation of fundamental injustice? I'm sorry, do you have any other foundations laying around? I surveyed 5000 years of written history and couldn't find any.
The options are try to do some good or don't.
>It's do-nothing bullshit.
Thank you for your opinion on the life and work of Dr. King.
Thank you for your opinion on the life and work of Dr. King.
Wasn't a King quote I was repudiating. He never said "you shouldn't try to do good on a foundation of injustice", because he wasn't an idiot.
You're wasting both my time and yours interpreting my comments in some of the most foaming-at-the-mouth bad faith I've ever encountered on hacker news. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail really was critical of white moderates for reasons I described, despite your furious protestations to the contrary.
Amazon didn't cause education to get expensive. They at least provide some respite.
But encouraging workers to pursue education, may potentially free them from servitude, to Amazon at least. If you want a company to reform itself you need to stand ready to praise the steps they take toward reform.
I agree that this is setting a precedent for perverse incentives to manifest, but I don't see how Amazon is to blame here. The government is failing to provide higher education to those who can benefit from it. Given this void, the free market inevitably would come with a solution of its own, even if it's suboptimal.
Exactly the comment I was thinking about. The price of education in the US is quite high and with programs like this you cement this circumstance while penalizing everyone not working for Amazon since universities will ensure the educational product you receive aligns with requirements of Amazon and form students in accordance to that.
This is just capturing the offspring, not too different from other strategies to get control of the market.
This is just capturing the offspring, not too different from other strategies to get control of the market.
> becoming an indentured servant for Amazon or Starbucks takes the place of what should be a public education service.
We already have a public education system, and any employee working at Amazon or Starbucks for minimum wage should qualify for Pell Grants that would make community college free anyways.
We already have a public education system, and any employee working at Amazon or Starbucks for minimum wage should qualify for Pell Grants that would make community college free anyways.
But what if every company offered free upskilling services to their employees, then that might help free people from this
And so maybe one company doing it can lead to other companies doing it more? Although this is covid related...so not sure it really applies
And so maybe one company doing it can lead to other companies doing it more? Although this is covid related...so not sure it really applies
I love Oscar Wilde to bits and regard him as one of the wittiest writers to live, but he was more of a satirist than political commentator, and at any rate, that quote is utter bollocks.
This seems like an odd conclusion given how easy it is to get loans even if you are not the strongest academically.
Precisely. This fukuyama dream of corporate liberalism paints exactly such a picture:
that the tax evading Monopoly which has subsumed a significant portion of US capital (stripped from the common man) can be seen as beneficent for merely satisfying their own need for skilled labor in an economic context they helped foment wherein education has been made unreachable by normal means.
that the tax evading Monopoly which has subsumed a significant portion of US capital (stripped from the common man) can be seen as beneficent for merely satisfying their own need for skilled labor in an economic context they helped foment wherein education has been made unreachable by normal means.
Disheartening for sure. I'm not sure if this is something that's particular to STEM fields, but there seems to be a far-too-large subset of people who think they're too smart for optimism. Like they've lost the ability to distinguish between pointed, constructive criticism and staunch, irrational negativity. I'm deeply sick of it.
> The comments here are disheartening. I get it, a lot of people hate Amazon and that perfectly ok, but why can't we be happy when companies do nice things?
Because the benefit of the doubt is for people/companies who haven't repeatedly (some might even say enthusiastically) shown that they don't deserve it.
At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good.
Because the benefit of the doubt is for people/companies who haven't repeatedly (some might even say enthusiastically) shown that they don't deserve it.
At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good.
>At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good.
It's a self-reinforcing cycle
amazon is bad -> therefore when amazon does something good, it's bad -> amazon is bad -> ...
It's a self-reinforcing cycle
amazon is bad -> therefore when amazon does something good, it's bad -> amazon is bad -> ...
When I read this, I always think of Congressman Floyd Spence:
The American reaction to a Russian SALT treaty during the Cold War is one well-known example of naïve cynicism in history. Political leaders negotiating on behalf of the United States discredited the offer simply because it was proposed by the Russian side.[1][9]
Former U.S. congressman Floyd Spence indicates the use of naïve cynicism in this quote:
The American reaction to a Russian SALT treaty during the Cold War is one well-known example of naïve cynicism in history. Political leaders negotiating on behalf of the United States discredited the offer simply because it was proposed by the Russian side.[1][9]
Former U.S. congressman Floyd Spence indicates the use of naïve cynicism in this quote:
"I have had a philosophy for some time in regard to SALT, and it goes like this: the Russians will not accept a SALT treaty that is not in their best interest, and it seems to me that if it is their best interests, it can‘t be in our best interest."
Even accepting that, why go on to assume that it's a zero-sum game between Amazon and the employee? Why can't be what's good value for Amazon also be good value for the employee?
This is intellectually lazy. You assume everything good is done in bad faith by people you've labelled "bad" and then judged them to be bad based on acts you've assumed were done in bad faith.
...it's the epitome of bias.
...it's the epitome of bias.
I believe people can always redeem themselves, but corporations need to be held to higher standards since they're 90% of what determines the quality of life in this country.
> You assume everything good is done in bad faith by people you've labelled "bad" and then judged them to be bad based on acts you've assumed were done in bad faith.
I assume what Amazon does is bad by default, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's good if I'm proven otherwise (maybe someone convinces me, or I do my own research and come to that conclusion). I'm just always going to assume the worst, and that's going to put them at a permanent disadvantage when competing for my patronage. That's like, peak capitalism: penalize bad behavior through the market.
Idk why I need to explain this, since I'm pretty sure everyone understands the concept of a reputation. Is it "intellectually lazy" to not invite a registered sex offender to your child's birthday party? This is basically the same thing, but less dramatic.
> You assume everything good is done in bad faith by people you've labelled "bad" and then judged them to be bad based on acts you've assumed were done in bad faith.
I assume what Amazon does is bad by default, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's good if I'm proven otherwise (maybe someone convinces me, or I do my own research and come to that conclusion). I'm just always going to assume the worst, and that's going to put them at a permanent disadvantage when competing for my patronage. That's like, peak capitalism: penalize bad behavior through the market.
Idk why I need to explain this, since I'm pretty sure everyone understands the concept of a reputation. Is it "intellectually lazy" to not invite a registered sex offender to your child's birthday party? This is basically the same thing, but less dramatic.
It's always interesting to see people who think other people should be held to a higher standard, and seldom think they themselves should be held to those standards.
It reminds me of the protesters happy to destroy other people's property, but then signal outrage when their own property is destroyed.
It reminds me of the protesters happy to destroy other people's property, but then signal outrage when their own property is destroyed.
How does that apply here? To what standards am I not holding myself to? I don't lie[1] and cheat[2] and try to exploit everyone in my life[3]. Hell, I even pay my taxes![4]
Plus, again, I'm talking about corporations, not people. Corporations are not people. For example, Microsoft is a rotten company and I will never be their customer if I can avoid it. But I have absolutely nothing against Microsoft's employees (except maybe some of the C suite)
[1] https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/jeff-bezos-may-have-lied-to-co...
[2] https://www.bookweb.org/news/aba-releases-report-detailing-a...
[3] https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment...
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/biden-singles-out-...
Plus, again, I'm talking about corporations, not people. Corporations are not people. For example, Microsoft is a rotten company and I will never be their customer if I can avoid it. But I have absolutely nothing against Microsoft's employees (except maybe some of the C suite)
[1] https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/jeff-bezos-may-have-lied-to-co...
[2] https://www.bookweb.org/news/aba-releases-report-detailing-a...
[3] https://time.com/5629233/amazon-warehouse-employee-treatment...
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/biden-singles-out-...
> I don't lie[1]
You've never lied? If someone found a lie you once said and put it in a comment like this, what would it signify?
I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't always lie, just like you don't always lie.
> and cheat[2]
Same sentiment as above.
> and try to exploit everyone in my life[3]
Pretty sure Amazon doesn't try to exploit everyone. Lots of Amazon employees feel that way too.
> Hell, I even pay my taxes![4]
You don't take deductions when you can? If you do, how are you different from Amazon?
As an example, for years, I never deducted charitable contributions even though I could. How about mortgage interest?
Unless you willingly do not take tax deductions that you are eligible for, I don't see a difference between your behavior and theirs.
You are a complex person, as is a company like Amazon. Throwing absolutist statements about them is as problematic as throwing absolutist statements about you.
You've never lied? If someone found a lie you once said and put it in a comment like this, what would it signify?
I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't always lie, just like you don't always lie.
> and cheat[2]
Same sentiment as above.
> and try to exploit everyone in my life[3]
Pretty sure Amazon doesn't try to exploit everyone. Lots of Amazon employees feel that way too.
> Hell, I even pay my taxes![4]
You don't take deductions when you can? If you do, how are you different from Amazon?
As an example, for years, I never deducted charitable contributions even though I could. How about mortgage interest?
Unless you willingly do not take tax deductions that you are eligible for, I don't see a difference between your behavior and theirs.
You are a complex person, as is a company like Amazon. Throwing absolutist statements about them is as problematic as throwing absolutist statements about you.
> it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good
You don't see how that attitude, if held by more people, creates the situation it holds in contempt?
If I'm working with someone who responds like that to acts of goodwill, I don't have an incentive to be nice. Being a human, I'll likely be spiteful. (And goodwill doesn't have to be purely altruistic to be good. Win-wins exist.)
You don't see how that attitude, if held by more people, creates the situation it holds in contempt?
If I'm working with someone who responds like that to acts of goodwill, I don't have an incentive to be nice. Being a human, I'll likely be spiteful. (And goodwill doesn't have to be purely altruistic to be good. Win-wins exist.)
Do any but an extremely small handful of companies do anything for its employees that isn't self-serving on some level?
Does it really matter that giving employees benefits like this is in Amazon's best interest when it is also in the interests of the employees themselves? Should we decry Amazon providing warehouse workers with a parking lot as some cynical ploy to get workers to come to work?
Not every benefit given to employees is bad just because it also benefits the company.
Does it really matter that giving employees benefits like this is in Amazon's best interest when it is also in the interests of the employees themselves? Should we decry Amazon providing warehouse workers with a parking lot as some cynical ploy to get workers to come to work?
Not every benefit given to employees is bad just because it also benefits the company.
>At this point, it's always safe to assume ulterior motives anytime Amazon does something that seems good.
I assume, in this case, there are tax benefits and that Amazon gets a cut of revenue.
I assume, in this case, there are tax benefits and that Amazon gets a cut of revenue.
You assume correctly
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/furthering-...
"As the employer, you may deduct the entire amount that you pay for the employee's educational costs as a business expense. However, only $5,250 is not considered wages and therefore, not subject to payroll taxes. Amounts over the annual limit are subject to income and payroll taxes."
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/furthering-...
"As the employer, you may deduct the entire amount that you pay for the employee's educational costs as a business expense. However, only $5,250 is not considered wages and therefore, not subject to payroll taxes. Amounts over the annual limit are subject to income and payroll taxes."
> 40hrs/week then you have part-time school on top: this is actually something that a lot of people do
I did my master's degree this way and actually did better than when I was an undergraduate with no other responsibilities.
I did my master's degree this way and actually did better than when I was an undergraduate with no other responsibilities.
Ah, but did you do better because of that condition?
I was a way better undergrad student at year 4 than at year 1 (normally it takes 5 years to complete a BSc where I'm from).
I was a way better undergrad student at year 4 than at year 1 (normally it takes 5 years to complete a BSc where I'm from).
Maybe so!
> I get it, a lot of people hate Amazon and that perfectly ok, but why can't we be happy when companies do nice things?
I don't think you get it. If someone took a big shit on my lawn every morning and refused to stop or clean it up but I found out they were paying for some kids college I'd still their they were a giant asshole.
Amazon is doing far worse in the world than shitting on my lawn and isnt doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They are doing it for good pr and because its hard to hire workers like these long term without dangling long term benefits over their heads.
I don't think you get it. If someone took a big shit on my lawn every morning and refused to stop or clean it up but I found out they were paying for some kids college I'd still their they were a giant asshole.
Amazon is doing far worse in the world than shitting on my lawn and isnt doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They are doing it for good pr and because its hard to hire workers like these long term without dangling long term benefits over their heads.
>I don't think you get it. If someone took a big shit on my lawn every morning and refused to stop or clean it up but I found out they were paying for some kids college I'd still their they were a giant asshole.
But many people here aren't simply expressing their discontent at amazon in general, they're expressing their discontent at amazon for doing this specific action. You can think amazon is doing a good thing here, but still think that amazon is a bad company. Thinking "amazon is a bad company therefore everything they do is bad" is the wrong attitude to have here.
But many people here aren't simply expressing their discontent at amazon in general, they're expressing their discontent at amazon for doing this specific action. You can think amazon is doing a good thing here, but still think that amazon is a bad company. Thinking "amazon is a bad company therefore everything they do is bad" is the wrong attitude to have here.
Yes, because instead of just paying higher wages and letting individuals decide what they'd like to spend their money on, they have this PR stunt. Amazon gets some free marketing, another tax write off, and they can use this as evidence that workers don't need protection from their constant scheming. They can continue to exploit their workforce to the maximum extent of the law while they lobby to get more worker rights removed because their workers can potentially jump through a few dozen hoops and get a college degree. Amazon will absolutely use this empty posturing to try and cover up their dismal labor record.
"Why should our workers be allowed to take bathroom breaks or even think about forming a union? We gave them free college*!"
*Some conditions apply
"Why should our workers be allowed to take bathroom breaks or even think about forming a union? We gave them free college*!"
*Some conditions apply
What, specifically, should Amazon do to make you truly happy with them?
How much pay is enough? How many benefits are enough? I am genuinely curious.
How much pay is enough? How many benefits are enough? I am genuinely curious.
They could start by ceasing their union busting efforts.
Last year they posted a job looking for a senior intelligence analyst to gather info on "sensitive topics that are highly confidential, including labor organizing threats against the company." Later that day they claimed they had made a mistake in describing the job.[1]
There is no single answer on what pay and benefits should be, or how well they should treat their workers. That's the whole point of unions: they provide collective bargaining where employees can decide how much their local area can reasonably support.
That's why organized labor is a threat to them. Their business model depends on squeezing wages and benefits, which is exactly what they did when they bought Whole Foods. They removed medical benefits for part time employees[2], and have recently cut paid breaks from 15 to 10 minutes, which now includes the time it takes to walk to and from the break room.[3]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/amazon-seeks-intelligence-an...
[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/09/14/amazon-whole...
[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whole-foods-cuts-some-workers-p...
Last year they posted a job looking for a senior intelligence analyst to gather info on "sensitive topics that are highly confidential, including labor organizing threats against the company." Later that day they claimed they had made a mistake in describing the job.[1]
There is no single answer on what pay and benefits should be, or how well they should treat their workers. That's the whole point of unions: they provide collective bargaining where employees can decide how much their local area can reasonably support.
That's why organized labor is a threat to them. Their business model depends on squeezing wages and benefits, which is exactly what they did when they bought Whole Foods. They removed medical benefits for part time employees[2], and have recently cut paid breaks from 15 to 10 minutes, which now includes the time it takes to walk to and from the break room.[3]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/amazon-seeks-intelligence-an...
[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/09/14/amazon-whole...
[3] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whole-foods-cuts-some-workers-p...
They also increased the pay of all Whole Foods workers which according to the ones I’ve talked to they all really liked.
'The Illinois-based worker explained that once the $15 minimum wage was enacted, part-time employee hours at their store were cut from an average of 30 to 21 hours a week, and full-time employees saw average hours reduced from 37.5 hours to 34.5 hours. The worker provided schedules from 1 November to the end of January 2019, showing hours for workers in their department significantly decreased as the department’s percentage of the entire store labor budget stayed relatively the same.
“We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time,” the worker said.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/06/whole-foods-...
“We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time,” the worker said.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/06/whole-foods-...
Please clarify how Amazon is shitting on your lawn every morning. What specifically does Amazon do to target you to your detriment. Are you upset by their carbon footprint? Do you work for Amazon?
I just don't see the logical progression here. Amazon can still be an asshole and also be doing something positive. Elon Musk is widely known for being an asshole yet most people would say that SpaceX and Tesla are net positives. So it's clear that life isn't so black and white where an entity can only assume one role at a time (Good/Evil). Instead, we all partake in good and evil activities in the micro.
And if the bottom line drives a business then what does it matter if PR drives this decision so long as its a positive move? Why do people have this obsession with purely altruistic acts that don't exist?
I just don't see the logical progression here. Amazon can still be an asshole and also be doing something positive. Elon Musk is widely known for being an asshole yet most people would say that SpaceX and Tesla are net positives. So it's clear that life isn't so black and white where an entity can only assume one role at a time (Good/Evil). Instead, we all partake in good and evil activities in the micro.
And if the bottom line drives a business then what does it matter if PR drives this decision so long as its a positive move? Why do people have this obsession with purely altruistic acts that don't exist?
" I get it, a lot of people hate Amazon and that perfectly ok, but why can't we be happy when companies do nice things?"
I think we have touched the hot stove enough times to know that corporations don't act altruistically. If they do something "nice" it's because it benefits them.
I think we have touched the hot stove enough times to know that corporations don't act altruistically. If they do something "nice" it's because it benefits them.
Does it matter if it benefits them if it also benefits the workers? Sure, it probably benefits Amazon. And honestly, it may be keeping more radical changes from happening. However, it's still an improvement over how things were going. Let's accept that this is a positive step, while still recognizing that Amazon still has a lot of work left to do.
Yes it does matter, because if it does not benefit them they will end it.
People's lives and families are worth investing in, no matter if a company deems it a benefit for itself or not. Such investments should not be coupled to company's bottom line.
People's lives and families are worth investing in, no matter if a company deems it a benefit for itself or not. Such investments should not be coupled to company's bottom line.
It really depends. The problem is the public benefit is being advertised, while we can only speculate about private motives. I'm not against corporations choosing reform to stave off revolution, but I am rightfully suspicious of it, especially in the current era.
For example, if a major shoe or clothing retailer provided a benefit for its (western) retail employees in order to preempt Congressional action into overseas sweat labor, then it's a really complex moral question, not just "it's better than nothing".
For example, if a major shoe or clothing retailer provided a benefit for its (western) retail employees in order to preempt Congressional action into overseas sweat labor, then it's a really complex moral question, not just "it's better than nothing".
I think the issue here is that a lot of people come at Amazon's decision from the lens of "This is actually a bad thing," when it's clearly a positive benefit.
Let's say that Amazon is using this college benefit to avoid raising wages for their front-line workers. One could argue that the college benefit is "bad" because it allows Amazon to ignore the root cause. However, this ignores the fact that Amazon could have just kept wages down without the college benefit. The front-line worker still benefits, even if not in the way they would have wanted.
There could also be the argument that Amazon is offering these college benefits to avoid unionization by their employees, legal action in the form of new laws about warehouse work, or some other action I haven't mentioned. This would mean that the college benefit is "bad" in that it has prevented a larger, more beneficial change. Depending on how likely one thought the larger change was, this could even be seen as a decrease in the expected utility for these workers.
I think this situation is what you mean by a "complex moral question" and I honestly agree with that point. However, I think that most people would rather take a smaller guaranteed benefit over a larger, uncertain benefit. This is primarily because well-being tends to rise with log(income), so a small benefit vs a medium-sized benefit has a much smaller well-being difference than it would initially seem.
I do agree that it ultimately depends though, and that suspicion is warranted. I just think that the moral question is too complex to immediately assume that Amazon is acting in bad faith like some commenters seem to indicate.
Let's say that Amazon is using this college benefit to avoid raising wages for their front-line workers. One could argue that the college benefit is "bad" because it allows Amazon to ignore the root cause. However, this ignores the fact that Amazon could have just kept wages down without the college benefit. The front-line worker still benefits, even if not in the way they would have wanted.
There could also be the argument that Amazon is offering these college benefits to avoid unionization by their employees, legal action in the form of new laws about warehouse work, or some other action I haven't mentioned. This would mean that the college benefit is "bad" in that it has prevented a larger, more beneficial change. Depending on how likely one thought the larger change was, this could even be seen as a decrease in the expected utility for these workers.
I think this situation is what you mean by a "complex moral question" and I honestly agree with that point. However, I think that most people would rather take a smaller guaranteed benefit over a larger, uncertain benefit. This is primarily because well-being tends to rise with log(income), so a small benefit vs a medium-sized benefit has a much smaller well-being difference than it would initially seem.
I do agree that it ultimately depends though, and that suspicion is warranted. I just think that the moral question is too complex to immediately assume that Amazon is acting in bad faith like some commenters seem to indicate.
I think one reason that people hate it, is that "a positive step" does nothing to further radical solutions, and in many cases, harms it.
To use a computer analogy, it's like: the problem is SQL injection. The "positive step" is disallowing special characters in user names. The radical solution is parameterized queries.
Adding in shitty character sanitization technically makes the situation better, but the bandaid-solution might make management less likely to sign off on fixing the actual problem.
(Note: radical in this sense basically means "addressing the root of the problem, transformative, fundamental" and not "fringe ideology," because everybody knows you should use parameterized queries.).
To use a computer analogy, it's like: the problem is SQL injection. The "positive step" is disallowing special characters in user names. The radical solution is parameterized queries.
Adding in shitty character sanitization technically makes the situation better, but the bandaid-solution might make management less likely to sign off on fixing the actual problem.
(Note: radical in this sense basically means "addressing the root of the problem, transformative, fundamental" and not "fringe ideology," because everybody knows you should use parameterized queries.).
But what part does Amazon have to play in radical change here? Is the radical change that Amazon should help push for free college federally? Like what specifically is the radical change being blocked by a private company paying for its employees college? We could sit here and create hypotheticals but unless there is something directly actionable, what more can we expect?
This might be a bandaid but this issue existed before Amazon, it's not created by Amazon. And many other companies have done this before Amazon. If the issue is the cost of education, there are so many factors causing that how can we expect a single private company to lead that change?
So what is the actual proposed solution that Amazon is making less viable through this change, and how could Amazon have enabled that radical change better? And once we derive what that action could have been, we have to evaluate the value it has to Amazon because at the end of the day they are operating a business not a social justice non-profit.
This might be a bandaid but this issue existed before Amazon, it's not created by Amazon. And many other companies have done this before Amazon. If the issue is the cost of education, there are so many factors causing that how can we expect a single private company to lead that change?
So what is the actual proposed solution that Amazon is making less viable through this change, and how could Amazon have enabled that radical change better? And once we derive what that action could have been, we have to evaluate the value it has to Amazon because at the end of the day they are operating a business not a social justice non-profit.
One would imagine that the richest man in the world, who rules the largest private employer in the nation, has some amount of power to influence others.
An obvious solution is to make secondary education free.
> And once we derive what that action could have been, we have to evaluate the value it has to Amazon because at the end of the day they are operating a business not a social justice non-profit.
This is a rather myopic view of society. If you believe that the status quo is unquestionable (that businesses should only prioritize their self-interest), then of course you can't believe in any radical change to it.
An obvious solution is to make secondary education free.
> And once we derive what that action could have been, we have to evaluate the value it has to Amazon because at the end of the day they are operating a business not a social justice non-profit.
This is a rather myopic view of society. If you believe that the status quo is unquestionable (that businesses should only prioritize their self-interest), then of course you can't believe in any radical change to it.
Bezos isn't Amazon. What he chooses to use his wealth on be called into question without conflating it with Amazon the company.
And yeah they are one of the largest employers in the world. You have yet to define what specific action Amazon should have taken to produce radical change. Maybe it would have just been a flat out increase in salaries, but with the lens of education, it seems like this is a positive move.
> This is a rather myopic view of society. If you believe that the status quo is unquestionable (that businesses should only prioritize their self-interest), then of course you can't believe in any radical change to it.
No, THIS is a myopic view of society. Entities are always going to work towards the social reward system established, and Amazon/Bezos are acting exactly as you'd expect for our reward system. If the issue is a broader society problem then by definition it cannot be exclusively Amazon/Bezos fault.
And this brings us back to what SHOULD they be doing in this scenario? I am not saying don't question the status quo. But how does questioning the status quo change anything about this scenario? We can question the status quo while also accepting that people live inside the status quo, and thats not inherently bad. I fail to see how it's inherently bad that Amazon is paying for employee education. What SPECIFICALLY does it block in terms of radical change? How do these two things become mutually exclusive in this scenario, not some hypothetical scenario?
And yeah they are one of the largest employers in the world. You have yet to define what specific action Amazon should have taken to produce radical change. Maybe it would have just been a flat out increase in salaries, but with the lens of education, it seems like this is a positive move.
> This is a rather myopic view of society. If you believe that the status quo is unquestionable (that businesses should only prioritize their self-interest), then of course you can't believe in any radical change to it.
No, THIS is a myopic view of society. Entities are always going to work towards the social reward system established, and Amazon/Bezos are acting exactly as you'd expect for our reward system. If the issue is a broader society problem then by definition it cannot be exclusively Amazon/Bezos fault.
And this brings us back to what SHOULD they be doing in this scenario? I am not saying don't question the status quo. But how does questioning the status quo change anything about this scenario? We can question the status quo while also accepting that people live inside the status quo, and thats not inherently bad. I fail to see how it's inherently bad that Amazon is paying for employee education. What SPECIFICALLY does it block in terms of radical change? How do these two things become mutually exclusive in this scenario, not some hypothetical scenario?
Do you not understand that the critique is with the system?
>The radical solution is parameterized queries.
Using parameterized queries is trivial, so it's not comparable here. A better analogy would be like arguing we should keep the SQL injection bug there, in the hopes that the hacks will convince management to rearchitect the whole app to using ORMs. Alternatively: we shouldn't use memory safety mitigations like ASLR/stack cookies/W^X, because that would impede the radical solution of rewriting everything in rust.
Using parameterized queries is trivial, so it's not comparable here. A better analogy would be like arguing we should keep the SQL injection bug there, in the hopes that the hacks will convince management to rearchitect the whole app to using ORMs. Alternatively: we shouldn't use memory safety mitigations like ASLR/stack cookies/W^X, because that would impede the radical solution of rewriting everything in rust.
Nah, you're missing the point entirely.
This is the media breathlessly reporting "Amazon bravely fixes SQL injection bug by disallowing special chars!" while every person who's thought about this for more than a minute goes "why the hell are y'all celebrating, that doesn't fix anything."
It's not hard to fix. It just requires the will do to it.
This is the media breathlessly reporting "Amazon bravely fixes SQL injection bug by disallowing special chars!" while every person who's thought about this for more than a minute goes "why the hell are y'all celebrating, that doesn't fix anything."
It's not hard to fix. It just requires the will do to it.
>This is the media breathlessly reporting "Amazon bravely fixes SQL injection bug by disallowing special chars!" while every person who's thought about this for more than a minute goes "why the hell are y'all celebrating, that doesn't fix anything."
but it does? It's not the ideal fix, but it does prevent sql injections.
>It's not hard to fix. It just requires the will do to it.
Fixing the soaring cost of education is a non-trivial problem.
but it does? It's not the ideal fix, but it does prevent sql injections.
>It's not hard to fix. It just requires the will do to it.
Fixing the soaring cost of education is a non-trivial problem.
> If they do something "nice" it's because it benefits them.
This is true for literally everyone and everything
This is true for literally everyone and everything
It's possible for situations to be mutually beneficial which looks to be the case here.
Basically nobody does anything altruistically, and it's naïve to think otherwise. Does that matter, though?
> If they do something "nice" it's because it benefits them.
As it is with most acts of kindness by most people.
As it is with most acts of kindness by most people.
I think this is caused by a cognitive bias. The more positive things about company X we hear that matter to us, the more we view anything they do in a positive light and the less weight we give to anything that counteracts that belief. Conversely, the more negative things about company X we hear that matter to us, the more we view anything they do in a negative light and the less weight we give to anything that counteracts that belief. Once a trend starts, it gets harder and harder to change people's minds.
Some people, in an otherwise disadvantaged situation, will benefit from this; that is completely fine in isolation. Still, it's wholly naive to assume that Amazon is doing this out of some sense of looking to do a "nice thing".
Most obviously, it is clear that this is being pushed as a pathway to IT education. Amazon, as a business, has massive vested interests in, one, increasing the size of the IT labor force, and two, promoting buy-in to its own IT infrastructure. It is irrational to not initially assume that this initiative is being conducted primarily to pursue such interests.
My criteria for being "happy" with the actions of a corporation like Amazon hinge on them doing something utterly unimaginable: going against the interests of their shareholders for the ultimate benefit of society at large. If, for instance, Amazon starts advocating for meaningful and equitable worker representation in business decisions that affect said workers, I'll be "happy".
Most obviously, it is clear that this is being pushed as a pathway to IT education. Amazon, as a business, has massive vested interests in, one, increasing the size of the IT labor force, and two, promoting buy-in to its own IT infrastructure. It is irrational to not initially assume that this initiative is being conducted primarily to pursue such interests.
My criteria for being "happy" with the actions of a corporation like Amazon hinge on them doing something utterly unimaginable: going against the interests of their shareholders for the ultimate benefit of society at large. If, for instance, Amazon starts advocating for meaningful and equitable worker representation in business decisions that affect said workers, I'll be "happy".
Agree, wondering if we swap Amazon with some other no name company, would the responses be the same?
Obviously it would be different… context matters.
By "context" do you mean your personal bias?
Different companies being shitty in different ways is not "bias"
When something has achieved some threshold of 'political-ness' online discussion defaults to being tribal crap.
There's sometimes still some interesting discussion buried in comments somewhere, but you can almost predict the entirety of threads on these kinds of topics without reading it. GPT-3 could probably generate HN comments for these topics and be pretty convincing.
There's sometimes still some interesting discussion buried in comments somewhere, but you can almost predict the entirety of threads on these kinds of topics without reading it. GPT-3 could probably generate HN comments for these topics and be pretty convincing.
I remember when Amazon said they'd pay my college tuition back around ~2012 to pursue my graduate degree. Turns out, there are a lot of strings attached. Who'da thunk it?
Yes, while it is true that Jeffery Epstein had a rape island, he also gave a lot of money to charity! Can't people just be happy when good things happen?
You definitely have to watch the fine print with these things. During my first professional job, I didn't have any degrees (I still don't, but I used to not, also) my employer offered "tuition reimbursement". The stipulation was that the class had to be job related. Not the degree, but the class. So I ended up having to take VB6 (yes, this was 20 years ago) as an elective, since that's what I did at my job (and already knew how to do - I'm not exaggerating when I said I learned nothing new in that class - think, how to add a text box to a form when I was doing very complicated file processing in my day job). But they wouldn't pay for the programming 101 class, let alone any liberal arts credits.
I took to calling it "Training Reimbursement".
I took to calling it "Training Reimbursement".
The IRS guideline as I understand it, is the DEGREE must be job related. Obviously a job could be more strict (but likely not less strict) than the IRS.
Like, basically anyone could expense a business degree. Job related? Doing better at business. But if you are a grocery store stocking shelves, you couldn't submit to the IRS college tuition for say an engineering degree.
But within that, it should be all classes. So if you are a self-taught programmer and going to school for a computer science degree, it's OK there is a class in public speaking or chemistry. As long as the degree itself is for something that you can justify as job related.
* Not a lawyer, hire a pro before offering tuition reimbursement to make sure you don't run afoul with IRS requirements
Like, basically anyone could expense a business degree. Job related? Doing better at business. But if you are a grocery store stocking shelves, you couldn't submit to the IRS college tuition for say an engineering degree.
But within that, it should be all classes. So if you are a self-taught programmer and going to school for a computer science degree, it's OK there is a class in public speaking or chemistry. As long as the degree itself is for something that you can justify as job related.
* Not a lawyer, hire a pro before offering tuition reimbursement to make sure you don't run afoul with IRS requirements
IRS requirements would be what you can deduct for offering to employees, not what the employer is required to offer
For sure! But it would be surprising for someone to offer a benefit like this that is taxable, vs offering the tax-deductible version.
Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Job Related only applies if you want to deduct the education expenses from your income taxes.
Employers can provide up to $5,250 in reimbursement tax free for all qualified programs regardless of the programs relation to the job
Over that amount it becomes a fringe benefit subject to income taxation, however if it is job related it can be deducted as an expenses for the employee making it tax free
Employers can provide up to $5,250 in reimbursement tax free for all qualified programs regardless of the programs relation to the job
Over that amount it becomes a fringe benefit subject to income taxation, however if it is job related it can be deducted as an expenses for the employee making it tax free
> I learned nothing new in that class
That's surprising - when I have a chance to take a "remedial" course on something that I feel like I already know well, I always end up learning at least something I had never thought of before.
That's surprising - when I have a chance to take a "remedial" course on something that I feel like I already know well, I always end up learning at least something I had never thought of before.
I just checked my employer's program - the eligibility requirement is "must apply as a credit toward a degree that is directly relevant to your current job", for whatever it's worth.
This reminds me of the millennial mantra that I've been seeing over the last year or two.
Pay us more money.
We don't want parties, prizes, perks or pizza. We want money. Determined to show you care about your employees? Pay them more money. Want to retain employees longer? Pay them more money. Want your employees to be able to afford education and health care?
Pay. Them. More. Money.
Pay us more money.
We don't want parties, prizes, perks or pizza. We want money. Determined to show you care about your employees? Pay them more money. Want to retain employees longer? Pay them more money. Want your employees to be able to afford education and health care?
Pay. Them. More. Money.
These aren’t exclusive options.
I’d rather have tuition than money because of tax advantages. Free college is free college. Paying me $1k extra to then pay taxes is less.
Also, this is biased toward people who want degrees so if I use it, it’s way more than they would pay me.
I’m not an anti-millennial (some of my favorite selves are millennials) but having absolutist mantras is stupid when it’s an alternative to having smarter, more beneficial work situations.
I have a long list of things I’d rather have than money. I’d probably take a $30k pay cut to work remotely, for example.
I’d rather have tuition than money because of tax advantages. Free college is free college. Paying me $1k extra to then pay taxes is less.
Also, this is biased toward people who want degrees so if I use it, it’s way more than they would pay me.
I’m not an anti-millennial (some of my favorite selves are millennials) but having absolutist mantras is stupid when it’s an alternative to having smarter, more beneficial work situations.
I have a long list of things I’d rather have than money. I’d probably take a $30k pay cut to work remotely, for example.
"I'd rather have tuition than money because of tax advantages"
Right, government policy has created an incentive for you to desire an employer-linked scheme instead of higher wages. The employer gets a tax benefit, and you get a more limited and convoluted way of getting compensation.
Right, government policy has created an incentive for you to desire an employer-linked scheme instead of higher wages. The employer gets a tax benefit, and you get a more limited and convoluted way of getting compensation.
All employee compensation is a tax benefit. What are you talking about?
Wages are an employer tax benefit too. From a tax perspective, wages and tuition are pretty similar.
I think the main benefit is that not many employees will take the benefit. And they can negotiate some big discount with an online university. So buying 10k degrees is cheaper than 10k paying on their own.
In my case, I’d rather have tuition because I’d get more return than higher wages.
Wages are an employer tax benefit too. From a tax perspective, wages and tuition are pretty similar.
I think the main benefit is that not many employees will take the benefit. And they can negotiate some big discount with an online university. So buying 10k degrees is cheaper than 10k paying on their own.
In my case, I’d rather have tuition because I’d get more return than higher wages.
What if the employer can buy for 20k, through scale, something that is worth 100k to you?
If only actual wages were tax-deductible.
Indeed, we have an elaborate government system designed to give businesses a thousand ways to reduce their tax liability, none of which include simply paying employees more money.
I wonder what the tax implications are for employees. A limit at my employer's education reimbursement program is said to be about a threshold over which the reimbursement becomes taxable.
Edit: Here is a claim that is similar:
As stated above, any amount of tuition reimbursement that exceeds $5,250 is considered a fringe benefit of the job, and the employee will have to pay taxes on that amount. However, if an employee is taking a class related to their job or career, they can declare that their tuition is a work-related expense, thus making it tax-exempt. However, the employee should be prepared to prove that each class they take helps them improve at their job and benefits the company. Otherwise, the money will be considered taxable income.
https://study.com/academy/popular/is-tuition-reimbursement-t...
Edit: Here is a claim that is similar:
As stated above, any amount of tuition reimbursement that exceeds $5,250 is considered a fringe benefit of the job, and the employee will have to pay taxes on that amount. However, if an employee is taking a class related to their job or career, they can declare that their tuition is a work-related expense, thus making it tax-exempt. However, the employee should be prepared to prove that each class they take helps them improve at their job and benefits the company. Otherwise, the money will be considered taxable income.
https://study.com/academy/popular/is-tuition-reimbursement-t...
When my tuition was reimbursed almost 20 years ago, it was at that $5250 level. I'm shocked that the limit hasn't increased, given that tuition everywhere has more than doubled since then.
It'snow worse that it was 20 years ago, IIRC, the Trump "tax cuts" rewrote tax code on benefits that impact tuition - university students who worked part-time for their school and got part of their tuition paid in return were suddenly on the hook for taxes on the cash equivalent of their tuition "fringe benefit". Students don't have a lot of cash, so that was a massive burden.
That didn't end up happening.
You are right: I did not remember correctly[1]
1. https://www.1040.com/tax-guide/faq/did-president-trump-s-new...
1. https://www.1040.com/tax-guide/faq/did-president-trump-s-new...
Is tuition reimbursement treated differently than Amazon paying the school directly?
> Pre-paid fees. Amazon will pay employees’ tuition and fees in advance rather than offering reimbursement after coursework completion, ensuring employees don’t need existing funds to start accessing the education options they want.
> Pre-paid fees. Amazon will pay employees’ tuition and fees in advance rather than offering reimbursement after coursework completion, ensuring employees don’t need existing funds to start accessing the education options they want.
I don't think it matters how the payment is made. Trump's former CFO is now facing charges for having his grandkid's tuition fees paid, but not declared as compensation. It's a bit different, but comparable.
It seems the limit is $5,250, unless the education qualifies as a "working condition benefit":
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b#en_US_2021_publink1000...
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b#en_US_2021_publink1000...
> hundreds of education partners across the country
Thats different than saying "any accredited institution".
I wonder if it is only low cost educational programs...
Thats different than saying "any accredited institution".
I wonder if it is only low cost educational programs...
Contrary to popular belief, you can get a quality education at programs that don't put you $200,000 in debt.
I think by low cost--OP meant unaccredited. Community colleges can certainly be amazing for the money
aren't a lot of unaccredited places like, for profit institutions generally lower quality and more expensive? They're trying to squeeze you for student loan bucks.
CCs or state colleges would be great imo.
CCs or state colleges would be great imo.
I hold a degree from a small, regional university and I am better for it IMO. That wasn't my point... I'm more curious where and what you can actually study.
Well, it does seem reasonable to put _some_ cost controls on it. Hopefully there's lots of great school on the list, but I very much doubt Dartmouth will make the cut.
Don't the elite universities already tend to have generous financial aid programs? For example, Harvard waives tuition for families with <$65k/year income.
Nobody who's working as a front line employee at Amazon will get into Harvard tier schools so this is an irrelevant point anyway.
Wow, such a wildly classist and unfounded assumption. Care to back it up with anything?
The parent post is probably incorrect by making an absolute statement ("nobody [...] will get into Harvard tier schools"), but the odds are certainly stacked against them.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
You know Harvard admits like 2k students per year right? Of which most are children of professors, upper middle class dream hoarders and maybe a handful of foreign and domestic notables? Plus a handful of people from the sticks, recruited athletes, legacies, and kids from poor urban high schools to round it out. *NORMAL PEOPLE* do not get into Harvard. NORMAL PEOPLE do work at Amazon.
Meanwhile there are 900,000+ front line employees at Amazon. Bringing up elite schools in relation to this group is missing the forest for the trees, and frankly insulting to people that worked hard and went to state schools that you'd consider "failures".
Meanwhile there are 900,000+ front line employees at Amazon. Bringing up elite schools in relation to this group is missing the forest for the trees, and frankly insulting to people that worked hard and went to state schools that you'd consider "failures".
I replied to another comment of yours, but what's funny is that you're right about what you're saying in the wrong-est sense of the idea. Statistically speaking, normal people don't go to Harvard. However, being a normal person making that absolutely enormous leap happens a non-trivial amount of times (there are 328 million Americans out there after all.)
It's so funny how the tone of your comment completely changes the meaning. Your tone essentially says "normal people aren't good enough to get into elite schools" which is disgusting and classist. If your tone was slightly different, "normal people aren't often given the opportunity to go to these schools even if they deserve it" you would be saying the same thing (statistically, "normal" people aren't the norm at Harvard).
But, either way, I hate to break it to you... but us peons are just as intelligent, clever, interesting, and motivated as the social elite... we just happened to be born to poor parents by the grace of history and (bad) luck.
It's so funny how the tone of your comment completely changes the meaning. Your tone essentially says "normal people aren't good enough to get into elite schools" which is disgusting and classist. If your tone was slightly different, "normal people aren't often given the opportunity to go to these schools even if they deserve it" you would be saying the same thing (statistically, "normal" people aren't the norm at Harvard).
But, either way, I hate to break it to you... but us peons are just as intelligent, clever, interesting, and motivated as the social elite... we just happened to be born to poor parents by the grace of history and (bad) luck.
> normal people aren't often given the opportunity to go to these schools even if they deserve it"
I personally believe, as a peon, that nobody deserves to go to a top school because they're eugenicist and classist by design. I have nothing because I went to a shitty state school, and the fact that others have happiness and everything handed to them because they're part of the lucky few is why I have a suicide note ready for when I snap and blow my brains out for being an abject, state school-educated failure.
> However, being a normal person making that absolutely enormous leap happens a non-trivial amount of times
Again, it doesn't. 2k admits. Only people that might be normal are the ones that are affirmative action admits from Wyoming or Alaska.
I personally believe, as a peon, that nobody deserves to go to a top school because they're eugenicist and classist by design. I have nothing because I went to a shitty state school, and the fact that others have happiness and everything handed to them because they're part of the lucky few is why I have a suicide note ready for when I snap and blow my brains out for being an abject, state school-educated failure.
> However, being a normal person making that absolutely enormous leap happens a non-trivial amount of times
Again, it doesn't. 2k admits. Only people that might be normal are the ones that are affirmative action admits from Wyoming or Alaska.
hey buddy, youre the first one to say anything about who’s a failure, conversation upstream was just about costs
Bringing up top schools is implicitly describing people like me, Amazon employees that went to state schools, as failures. It's completely divorced from reality.
I suspect the main barrier for poor families to get into such universities is getting accepted in the first place, not because of the tuition.
This is correct, people from middle and upper middle class families can't get in that did well in high school and college. What sort of bubble is made up of only people that went to top schools?
Stanford offers tuition-free access to families that earn less than $150,000 per year.
> but I very much doubt Dartmouth will make the cut.
Do you really think front line employees at Amazon are going to go to Dartmouth? People that worked hard in high school and college like me can't go to Dartmouth. Bizarre to equate that with quality when this is designed to give people opportunities to pay for University of New Hampshire.
Do you really think front line employees at Amazon are going to go to Dartmouth? People that worked hard in high school and college like me can't go to Dartmouth. Bizarre to equate that with quality when this is designed to give people opportunities to pay for University of New Hampshire.
I upvoted you just so that your ignorance can make a good discussion point.
There are an innumerable amount of "hard working" students that have all sorts of jobs in our economy. I'm now a 30-something tenured researcher at a world class instution, but at one point I was a 19 year old working swing shifts in a manufacturing plant while attending a world class university... because although I worked hard in high school just like you... I also desperately needed money. It would have been great if my greedy/zealous manager would have paid for my college, I was repairing the electronics and software for him at near minimum wage anyway.
There are an innumerable amount of "hard working" students that have all sorts of jobs in our economy. I'm now a 30-something tenured researcher at a world class instution, but at one point I was a 19 year old working swing shifts in a manufacturing plant while attending a world class university... because although I worked hard in high school just like you... I also desperately needed money. It would have been great if my greedy/zealous manager would have paid for my college, I was repairing the electronics and software for him at near minimum wage anyway.
> I upvoted you just so that your ignorance
I upvoted because he's correct. There's a staggering amount of denial in this thread. Statistically (and recently https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/histor...) the trends remain unchanged for Ivy league schools. The competition is high and the prejudices are baked in.
I upvoted because he's correct. There's a staggering amount of denial in this thread. Statistically (and recently https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/histor...) the trends remain unchanged for Ivy league schools. The competition is high and the prejudices are baked in.
I worked hard, did well in high school, did everything right. Yet I had no shot at getting into any top schools or achieving anything close to what even the least accomplished top school admit has done in their life. Optimizing for a tiny fraction of elites while leaving the left of us to rot is the what's wrong with this country.
> while attending a world class university
Most of us can't attend "world class universities", we're inherently inferior. The vast majority, actually. So bringing up elite schools in this conversation is both irrelevant and in many cases just self aggrandizing.
I don't know how you twisted what I said into the idea that people from FCs can't go to top schools, but the reality is almost none (and probably close to none) do.
Most of us can't attend "world class universities", we're inherently inferior. The vast majority, actually. So bringing up elite schools in this conversation is both irrelevant and in many cases just self aggrandizing.
I don't know how you twisted what I said into the idea that people from FCs can't go to top schools, but the reality is almost none (and probably close to none) do.
Then the headline should read “Amazon to provide employee training” or something along those lines. As it is this is just corporate clickbait.
No, it's not. An education at Random State College is still rather more than "employee training".
Not to Amazon it's not, but you won't see that in their propoganda. Even Random State Community College is likely a better education (this is not meant as a backhanded compliment to community colleges, which are at least honest and respectable about what they provide and don't).
But if I'm getting the education, for free, why do I care whether it serves as employee training to Amazon?
And, community colleges provide a better education than state colleges? Seriously? Do you have any evidence for that position?
And, community colleges provide a better education than state colleges? Seriously? Do you have any evidence for that position?
I believe you misinterpreted. State community colleges are likely better than any sort of "training programs" Amazon provides in terms of education. If those "training programs" happen to include a waiver at a full state university, then of course not, but the program waivers aren't entirely composed of 4 year universities and many seem to be Amazon tailored programs, based on the article.
Ah, I see.
I misinterpreted you as saying that Amazon was using a real college as a training program.
If Amazon will pay for "education", and the options are a four year degree or an Amazon training program, I'll take the degree and ignore their training.
I misinterpreted you as saying that Amazon was using a real college as a training program.
If Amazon will pay for "education", and the options are a four year degree or an Amazon training program, I'll take the degree and ignore their training.
Agreed. The title sounds like Amazon will pay any college tuition, provided the student incurs a cost of some sort.
This seems like more of a PR move than anything.
This seems like more of a PR move than anything.
Since when do people think of 4-year degrees when they think of "employee training"?
Of course Dartmouth won't. Why would Amazon pay ridiculous amount of money for the same education you can get much cheaper somewhere else? (e.g., Coursera or many state universities). This program is about people gaining useful skills to advance their careers, not about fancy diplomas and networking. Do you think that Dartmouth or any elite school can better teach someone intro to coding than thousands of other legit places?
Update: this is getting downvoted. I guess many Dartmouth graduates here with ego...
Update: this is getting downvoted. I guess many Dartmouth graduates here with ego...
HN generally considers it distasteful to complain about downvotes, especially in uninformed ways. The downvotes are because of your false claims about the cost of study at these universities. Check here https://financialaid.dartmouth.edu/cost-attendance/myintuiti... and put in the typical situation of a frontline amazon worker and see how much they would be expected to actually pay after the financial aid is subtracted (it will be close to zero, I just checked).
Universities, especially prestigious ones are expensive in the US. But the prestigious ones also happen to have incredibly good financial aid options. The problem is the classist system that makes it difficult for a low-income person to have the CV that lets them get admitted. Paying the rest after being admitted is comparatively easy (both for the rich and for the poor). It is the middle class that is in a bit uncomfortable situation as the financial aid can still have aggressive cutoffs.
Universities, especially prestigious ones are expensive in the US. But the prestigious ones also happen to have incredibly good financial aid options. The problem is the classist system that makes it difficult for a low-income person to have the CV that lets them get admitted. Paying the rest after being admitted is comparatively easy (both for the rich and for the poor). It is the middle class that is in a bit uncomfortable situation as the financial aid can still have aggressive cutoffs.
Financial aid is irrelevant here because Amazon is the one paying. Dartmouth not gonna give Amazon financial aid. If someone else pays your tuition you not gonna apply for financial aid.
Who cares? If Amazon hires them in different capacity afterwards, it is all good? GM and GE used to do this all the time. I have met engineers who started as track drivers and factory line workers
I agree completely. That wasn't my point and I hope it is useful for folks beyond climbing the Amazon ladder but knowing friends trying to escape driving a forklift in a warehouse any thing to help is better than nothing.
Define low cost. Universities are ashamed of their own tuition. Many of them hide it.
It is common for universities to charge a single sum for "full-time" students--students whose credit load is above some threshhold. But, Kansas State, for instance, only lists per credit tuition: ~$320. If you take 16 credits--a pace that could have you graduate in four years--that would be over $5k/semester, about $41k for the most minimal four-year degree.
Boise State charges (in 2021) $4k/semester for full-time students. Is that low cost?
Boston College charges $30k+/semester.
U of Texas costs ~$6500/semester.
If K-State, Boise State, and UT are considered low cost, I think you'll be fine. These all provide a fine education.
It is common for universities to charge a single sum for "full-time" students--students whose credit load is above some threshhold. But, Kansas State, for instance, only lists per credit tuition: ~$320. If you take 16 credits--a pace that could have you graduate in four years--that would be over $5k/semester, about $41k for the most minimal four-year degree.
Boise State charges (in 2021) $4k/semester for full-time students. Is that low cost?
Boston College charges $30k+/semester.
U of Texas costs ~$6500/semester.
If K-State, Boise State, and UT are considered low cost, I think you'll be fine. These all provide a fine education.
FWIW, Stanford claims, "Tuition is covered for undergrads with family incomes under $150,000. Tuition, room and board are covered for undergrads with family incomes below $75,000."[0]
That sounds pretty low cost and I would guess the financial threshholds would apply to most of Amazon's front line workers.
[0] https://www.stanford.edu/admission/
That sounds pretty low cost and I would guess the financial threshholds would apply to most of Amazon's front line workers.
[0] https://www.stanford.edu/admission/
“Tuition covered” means student loans, not waivers.
Someone I loved was accepted at a school like Stanford with a similar policy. The good news was the entire $50k tuition (10 years ago) was covered, the bad news was that meant $1500 in work study, $6k in scholarships, and $43.5k in student loans guaranteed. Plus $10k for room and board.
The way schools word this is such a dark pattern.
Someone I loved was accepted at a school like Stanford with a similar policy. The good news was the entire $50k tuition (10 years ago) was covered, the bad news was that meant $1500 in work study, $6k in scholarships, and $43.5k in student loans guaranteed. Plus $10k for room and board.
The way schools word this is such a dark pattern.
I agree that what you describe doesn't seem honest. I'm also trying to read between the lines of your words. Is that $50k + $10k per semester? Per year? $10k would have covered 4 years of rent in a lot of places 10 years ago, but only one year of room and board in others. $50k still covers 4 years of tuition in lots of places, but not lots of places "like Stanford".
I'm gonna guess that all your numbers represent a single year. Then I have to ask, they only earned $9000 outside of work study during that period? That seems seriously low for a year. Were they prevented from working during the school year?
I'm gonna guess that all your numbers represent a single year. Then I have to ask, they only earned $9000 outside of work study during that period? That seems seriously low for a year. Were they prevented from working during the school year?
Tuition was $50k per year. Room and board was $10k per year. So over four years that would be $240k - $30k in benefits, so $210k in student loans. For undergrad.
The school wasn’t as good as Stanford but top 20 and had a similar policy and tuition.
The numbers don’t represent any outside work. The $1500/year was like 8 hours a week doing random university jobs. It possible they could work, but it would be really hard on top of the 8 hours work study and class load.
The school wasn’t as good as Stanford but top 20 and had a similar policy and tuition.
The numbers don’t represent any outside work. The $1500/year was like 8 hours a week doing random university jobs. It possible they could work, but it would be really hard on top of the 8 hours work study and class load.
It's strange to me working at a startup how vastly different the company programs are to support employees at enterprise level companies, the scale of this kind of program dwarfs our entire company many many times over.
Maybe this program will go entirely unused like my $500 yearly education budget though.
Maybe this program will go entirely unused like my $500 yearly education budget though.
A $500 won't even get you proper training or a certification from the vendor of that massive tool and/or service that your business relies on, that's why it goes unused. It's large enough that you feel like blowing it on a Coursera course or a book feels too little and small enough not to be of actual importance.
Can I blow it on books? That sounds like enough for two of the ridiculously overpriced books I constantly eye.
Dang, what kinda books you eyeing?
Knuth's set was the most expensive one I've bought recently
Knuth's set was the most expensive one I've bought recently
I suspect these benefits are pretty cheap to offer, at least most years. my employer has a fairly generous tuition reimbursement benefit, but people rarely use it. most people don't want to slowly chip away at a degree on top of a full-time job.
With annual 100%-150% turnover rates* Amazon needs to figure out some way to keep people around and engaged. They’re simply running out of Americans to employ who are willing to work such a physically demanding job for peanuts.
Their biggest competitor for employees in many places in America is Wal-Mart; and they’ve been offering this for a while now.
Their biggest competitor for employees in many places in America is Wal-Mart; and they’ve been offering this for a while now.
Coming from a country where education is public by default it feels weird society relies on private companies to provide basics.
You still have what you "deserve", if you have done the effort to enter and work with a specific company you have free education, otherwise keep looking for better luck.
Yes, it is better than nothing but IMHO is another way to concentrate power.
You still have what you "deserve", if you have done the effort to enter and work with a specific company you have free education, otherwise keep looking for better luck.
Yes, it is better than nothing but IMHO is another way to concentrate power.
I’ve always wondered about this. There are absolutely no strings attached? Even if I’m terrible academically and barely passed school I can still get the state to pay for me to likely just fail university?
Not exactly.
In Spain where I am from the cost of college is something like €2000 per year (approx, depends on degree). That is for your first attempt, which means if you pass everything the total cost could be 8000 for the degree. If you fail a class and have to take it again, besides gpa, the price increments, and keeps incrementing for each attempt until you reach almost the real cost of that class.
Some other things to note:
- public schools usually have better recognition than private ones, for things such mba's may be different
- the government can help with the tuition fee depending on the financial situation, meaning you can get the degree for free
- if you get the max score in one class you get that fee back, so if you get max scores in all classes you can also get the degree for free
In Spain where I am from the cost of college is something like €2000 per year (approx, depends on degree). That is for your first attempt, which means if you pass everything the total cost could be 8000 for the degree. If you fail a class and have to take it again, besides gpa, the price increments, and keeps incrementing for each attempt until you reach almost the real cost of that class.
Some other things to note:
- public schools usually have better recognition than private ones, for things such mba's may be different
- the government can help with the tuition fee depending on the financial situation, meaning you can get the degree for free
- if you get the max score in one class you get that fee back, so if you get max scores in all classes you can also get the degree for free
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think it’s a great idea to base fees based on your performance in classes after you’ve actually finished it. In the US there are plenty of scholarships but you need to have demonstrated prior achievement which shuts the doors for many people who don’t excel until they get to college (although, admittedly there are few people in this group).
Tuition reimbursement from my employer is how I was eventually able to get a degree, for which I am very grateful.
US societal questions aside for the moment, as a very pragmatic matter for individuals, this could be a great opportunity for many.
US societal questions aside for the moment, as a very pragmatic matter for individuals, this could be a great opportunity for many.
Not sure how much this pertains to Amazon's employees, but regarding costs, you can get an engineering degree from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo for 4 - 5x less than UC (LA, SD or Berkeley) and still get a really good education. I guess provide an environment and qualified teaching staff, it's up to the student to make best use of it.
Research of course, might be a different ball game.
Interesting to see that Amazon has a large focus on UX Design, which Grow.google also emphasizes. I interpret that as a signal that both of these companies see a gap there, although a hard one to train (or, harder to train than basic IT skills...)
Can anybody comment on what the hiring needs and career path looks like at Google/Amazon at the moment?
Can anybody comment on what the hiring needs and career path looks like at Google/Amazon at the moment?
To the first part, teaching people the concepts of UX design helps them communicate more clearly what’s difficult about their job and come up with innovations to automate that, which Amazon will then use without compensation to automate their job away.
Companies paying for tuition is the right way to approach college for all. Amazon, Starbucks, and other institutions have the ability to drive down the cost of college through intelligent and forceful economies of scale.
Add this to the growing list of retail (retail focused) organizations already employing this method for employee retention/acquisition:
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22627543/free-online-college-p...
Also, I'll admit that in my current company it is a royal PITA to submit for EDU reimbursement and I would love to have a lower barrier of entry for enrollment friction, etc..
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22627543/free-online-college-p...
Also, I'll admit that in my current company it is a royal PITA to submit for EDU reimbursement and I would love to have a lower barrier of entry for enrollment friction, etc..
Sounds like a fantastic initiative. Kudos to Amazon. However, I still think that something like college education should be a government priority rather than a company benefit.
How does this work? You need to be full-time at work, but also somehow manage college classes? How can you fit anything after an exhausting 40 hours of work per week?
A lot (most?) people who don't come from affluent backgrounds have to put themselves through school while working fulltime.
You can't pay your house/apartment and other bills without a fulltime job, so if you want to go to college to try to get in a better life position, you've got to do it on top of also working fulltime.
I tried to do this for a while as a teen -- I worked as a landscaper all day, then would ride a bus 1 hour each way to night classes at a community college.
Said FUCK THAT and dropped out after 2 semesters.
I applaud anyone who can actually do this. I'm not sure I could finish college even with zero responsibilities, you have to take so many boring classes you don't care about as pre-requisites.
You can't pay your house/apartment and other bills without a fulltime job, so if you want to go to college to try to get in a better life position, you've got to do it on top of also working fulltime.
I tried to do this for a while as a teen -- I worked as a landscaper all day, then would ride a bus 1 hour each way to night classes at a community college.
Said FUCK THAT and dropped out after 2 semesters.
I applaud anyone who can actually do this. I'm not sure I could finish college even with zero responsibilities, you have to take so many boring classes you don't care about as pre-requisites.
Opposite is true. The vast majority of students do not work full time. A majority do not work at all:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_ssa.pdf
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_ssa.pdf
In my personal experience I'm pretty sure I earned more money per hour by getting awesome grades + scholarships than I would have on minimum wage. It's a bit of a chicken and egg issue, but if you can make do in the the gap (about a year), then you can ride the scholarships money better than a job
C's get degrees, but the marginal difference between a C and and A wasn't all that much time.
C's get degrees, but the marginal difference between a C and and A wasn't all that much time.
Yeah, if I could go back and tell my 16 year old self not to do drugs and drop out of highschool because college is really, really expensive I would. I probably wouldn't listen though haha.
It's entirely your own doing if you don't get good grades IMO unless you have a legitimate disability. But some people were idiots when they were younger, or had other (questionable) priorities. I've also heard really sad life situations where teens wind up essentially having to take care of their siblings and the household due to dysfunctional parents or other stuff.
Because yeah, if your pubescent, immature brain decides that you have better things to do than schoolwork, you've really screwed the pooch and lost your shot.
Can't well go back to highschool and try over, haha.
(It worked out okay for me, I eventually got a GED and that's it. Never finished highschool or went to college, but programmed for fun as a kid and so managed to worm my way into software eventually. It probably would not have worked out in about a billion other scenarios, RIP)
It's entirely your own doing if you don't get good grades IMO unless you have a legitimate disability. But some people were idiots when they were younger, or had other (questionable) priorities. I've also heard really sad life situations where teens wind up essentially having to take care of their siblings and the household due to dysfunctional parents or other stuff.
Because yeah, if your pubescent, immature brain decides that you have better things to do than schoolwork, you've really screwed the pooch and lost your shot.
Can't well go back to highschool and try over, haha.
(It worked out okay for me, I eventually got a GED and that's it. Never finished highschool or went to college, but programmed for fun as a kid and so managed to worm my way into software eventually. It probably would not have worked out in about a billion other scenarios, RIP)
I put myself through college, but had jobs I could study on; Security Guard, and a Mini Storage Manager.
I couldn't imagine even working twenty hours delivering a ton of packages, and getting through school, especially if you need decent grades for grad school.
Amazon knows very few of their workers will take advantage of their college offer.
Great PR though.
I couldn't imagine even working twenty hours delivering a ton of packages, and getting through school, especially if you need decent grades for grad school.
Amazon knows very few of their workers will take advantage of their college offer.
Great PR though.
I worked 40 hours a week and full time undergrad and grad school. You work, go to school when you aren't working and when you aren't doing either of those, you sit in the library and study.
My wife is currently finishing her masters while working 40 hours a week and still being a mom. It's very stressful, but she's killing it. One of the harder parts (aside from the long nights) was finding an internship that was flexible with her schedule.
> finishing her masters while working 40 hours a week and still being a mom.
I can imagine doing any two of those, with some difficulty. Doing all three is insane. Is her bloodstream, like, 30% caffeine?
I can imagine doing any two of those, with some difficulty. Doing all three is insane. Is her bloodstream, like, 30% caffeine?
I guarantee she's not delivering packages for Amazon.
I once heard they were suspose to deliver 500 packages a day.
I hope to a higher power I got that wrong.
I once heard they were suspose to deliver 500 packages a day.
I hope to a higher power I got that wrong.
> I once heard they were suspose to deliver 500 packages a day.
That number is obviously wrong. Question your sources.
That number is obviously wrong. Question your sources.
It's completely doable. My mom went back to school at 40 and retired in her 60s with a Masters. Was it hard on her... yes. Most things worth doing take hard work.
A lot of people always find a way to blame their issues on something external. Oh it's too expensive! Oh there's not enough time! Oh someone should do it for me! Oh that person just got lucky!
Maybe some of that's true, but it doesn't really matter. Take the cards you're dealt and do something with them. Or.. you can just fold and keep blaming it on something else.
A lot of people always find a way to blame their issues on something external. Oh it's too expensive! Oh there's not enough time! Oh someone should do it for me! Oh that person just got lucky!
Maybe some of that's true, but it doesn't really matter. Take the cards you're dealt and do something with them. Or.. you can just fold and keep blaming it on something else.
> employees must continue working part-time or full-time at Amazon while taking classes.
From: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/business/amazon-college-tuiti...
From: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/business/amazon-college-tuiti...
As others have pointed out, it's not too bad in your early 20's. I worked full time, went to school part time, then to another part time job. Mainly because my local didn't offer evening full time schools, and well, I needed money more.
What's odd is that it didn't even feel like much of a chore. You stayed so busy things just kinda flew by.
Thinking about doing that now completely stresses me out.
What's odd is that it didn't even feel like much of a chore. You stayed so busy things just kinda flew by.
Thinking about doing that now completely stresses me out.
You don't have a life and it's difficult for ~4 years. You live/breath/eat work and school. If you have a family, good luck.
I did it in my 20s and would not do it now as my body has aged.
I did it in my 20s and would not do it now as my body has aged.
Lots of adults work themselves through college. It’s not easy but life doesn’t always allow the “college experience.”
There are 128 hours left in a given 40-hour work week.
Edit: funny the downvotes cannot disprove my simple math. :)
Edit: funny the downvotes cannot disprove my simple math. :)
When you get a week off from school and only have your 40 hour work week, you realize that you don't know what to do with yourself, having (temporarily) forgotten how to fill your spare time with personal activities.
(But don't worry - you'll regrow that skill quickly once you're done with your schooling.) :-)
(But don't worry - you'll regrow that skill quickly once you're done with your schooling.) :-)
So true. A 40 hour work week without school feels like you're on vacation. It's so weird when the clock turns 5pm and you're just done with work and have no further responsibilities.
I worked a full time tech job from the start of my senior year of college all the way though my master's degree. All I can say is 'never again'. 20yo me was able to sort of handle it and I had to do a lot of schedule juggling (I was lucky that both my workplace and my university offered some degree of flexibility). Most of my workdays were booked back-to-back from 8 AM to 8 PM, failed a couple of classes and had to repeat a bunch of exams, it was pretty rough. The money was good but I didn't have the time to do anything with that. Looking back, It was a mistake, I had all the time in the world for a full time job after finishing college. This was happening before and during a recession so the main reason was that I was anxious I would be left out of the workforce if I left my job..
I earned two masters degrees working a full time job and raising two kids. You have to want it badly to make it happen. Its about equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.
I know you already did this, but for others reading this: Just get a damn loan. No ones gonna give you a cookie for suffering. Unless you hate spare time or your masters is a “just show up” kinda program.
Well, you start by not acting like 40 hours a week is an insurmountable mountain and all you can muster.
I took 2 classes while doing a full time summer internship when I was in college. It wasn't too difficult. If you can get 2 courses in during each summer that's a typical masters degree in 2 years.
I'm not saying that that's the case
but "here" you can attend college at weekends, so every two weekends you spend weekend at school
This allows you to work full time and study
but "here" you can attend college at weekends, so every two weekends you spend weekend at school
This allows you to work full time and study
Many college students already do this. I know I did. It’s only the rich with the luxury to not work.
I'm doing that. I have classmates that do the same while also managing small kids.
It's worked for millions of people for many years. Some things are hard. If you want it you'll work for it. I realize this is some foreign concept to people that grow up and have their parents hand them everything. A lot of people work during college and are able to get less loans because of it. Weird eh? My mom did it at 40 with 3 kids. She retired last year with a masters. Every bit of it was done while working.
I'm starting to understand boomers more lately. The comments on here reek of entitlement.
I'm starting to understand boomers more lately. The comments on here reek of entitlement.
it's doable but it takes a special kind of person to pull this off successfully - not easy.
It's not mandatory.
>"We launched Career Choice almost ten years ago to help remove the biggest barriers to continuing education—time and money—and we are now expanding it even further to pay full tuition and add several new fields of study.”
They acknowledge the two key constraints but aside from one program for AWS that supposedly provides on the job training, they failed to mention how they helped on the time aspect, only money. 40 hours at Amazon from my anecdata seems highly optimistic, it's probably 50 for many.
I'm highly cyninical of any of these such programs. The last thing I want is a privatized business like Amazon trying to educate and having incentives to lock people into their ecosystem at a fundamental level such as education. Education should acknowledge the downsides of Amazon as well as the upsides and I doubt you'll see much of any of the former.
On a likely related note, I had 4 Amazon recruiters contact me in the past two days which is higher than normal (at least, for me) even after I've told multiple recruiters I'm not interested in working at Amazon until they have a shift in how they treat their labor culture. Frankly I'm not even a good fit for most the types of development Amazon is interested in.
My, again, cynical view here from anecdata of Amazon employees is that Amazon is struggling more than most to hire in tech careers, largely because they've turned off many who have other options. Higher pay to many isn't worth higher associated stress and instability. This looks like a new flailing attempt to plug the hole or perhaps set the stage to request special exemptions or drastic increases on H1B programs to again try and drive down labor rates while also help meet their demand.
They acknowledge the two key constraints but aside from one program for AWS that supposedly provides on the job training, they failed to mention how they helped on the time aspect, only money. 40 hours at Amazon from my anecdata seems highly optimistic, it's probably 50 for many.
I'm highly cyninical of any of these such programs. The last thing I want is a privatized business like Amazon trying to educate and having incentives to lock people into their ecosystem at a fundamental level such as education. Education should acknowledge the downsides of Amazon as well as the upsides and I doubt you'll see much of any of the former.
On a likely related note, I had 4 Amazon recruiters contact me in the past two days which is higher than normal (at least, for me) even after I've told multiple recruiters I'm not interested in working at Amazon until they have a shift in how they treat their labor culture. Frankly I'm not even a good fit for most the types of development Amazon is interested in.
My, again, cynical view here from anecdata of Amazon employees is that Amazon is struggling more than most to hire in tech careers, largely because they've turned off many who have other options. Higher pay to many isn't worth higher associated stress and instability. This looks like a new flailing attempt to plug the hole or perhaps set the stage to request special exemptions or drastic increases on H1B programs to again try and drive down labor rates while also help meet their demand.
> On a likely related note, I had 4 Amazon recruiters contact me in the past two days which is higher than normal (at least, for me) even after I've told multiple recruiters I'm not interested in working at Amazon until they have a shift in how they treat their labor culture. Frankly I'm not even a good fit for most the types of development Amazon is interested in.
They must be desperate. They’re the closest thing to a tech company that has recruiters send me a message and the only FAANG that ever would contact me.
That being said the recruiter messages always feel robotic and impersonal, even worse than the keyword dumps from guys shilling there shitty low paid c2h enterprise roles. I just ignore them. Not interested in the FAANG interview circus anyway.
They must be desperate. They’re the closest thing to a tech company that has recruiters send me a message and the only FAANG that ever would contact me.
That being said the recruiter messages always feel robotic and impersonal, even worse than the keyword dumps from guys shilling there shitty low paid c2h enterprise roles. I just ignore them. Not interested in the FAANG interview circus anyway.
>I'm highly cyninical of any of these such programs. The last thing I want is a privatized business like Amazon trying to educate and having incentives to lock people into their ecosystem at a fundamental level such as education. Education should acknowledge the downsides of Amazon as well as the upsides and I doubt you'll see much of any of the former.
Is that's what's actually happening though? It looks like they're paying for employee to go to certain (community?) colleges, not for them to get AWS certs.
Is that's what's actually happening though? It looks like they're paying for employee to go to certain (community?) colleges, not for them to get AWS certs.
I haven't looked at it in depth, but they have a list of approved "partner" institutions. Those institutions will have incentives and pressures to tote a false narrative of preference towards Amazon, especially as universities have been struggling prior to the pandemic. You can tailor select those to tote the propoganda you want and they'll have every interest in appeasing. If those partners include large reputable institutions that arent under financial shortfalls then I would mostly tend to agree with you.
I went to school and later worked at a state university that had substantial ties to the fossil fuel industry, including a lot of donations for infrastructure and research. Whenever we published something or taught something there was always a behind the scenes discussion about how we had to tred lightly about biting the hand that fed us ("don't say bad things about oil and coal, they give us tens of millions a year"). Heck, it even influenced the lines and the types of research the university would promote publications or sometimes even allow.
Not sure if the pandemic helped or hindered public university revenue streams, but I have to suspect all the economic downturn hurt admissions and revenue more than helped. They were already hurting across the country prior to the pandemic so I only imagine it's worse now. That means piles of money can carry even more influence than before.
I went to school and later worked at a state university that had substantial ties to the fossil fuel industry, including a lot of donations for infrastructure and research. Whenever we published something or taught something there was always a behind the scenes discussion about how we had to tred lightly about biting the hand that fed us ("don't say bad things about oil and coal, they give us tens of millions a year"). Heck, it even influenced the lines and the types of research the university would promote publications or sometimes even allow.
Not sure if the pandemic helped or hindered public university revenue streams, but I have to suspect all the economic downturn hurt admissions and revenue more than helped. They were already hurting across the country prior to the pandemic so I only imagine it's worse now. That means piles of money can carry even more influence than before.
one of the odd (but kinda nice) things about the amazon hiring process is they dont really care whether your background is a good fit for the position. if you pass their general interview, they will give you a chance on any team with an opening at your level.
it can be a good opportunity to reskill in a totally different domain without sacrificing comp.
it can be a good opportunity to reskill in a totally different domain without sacrificing comp.
I don't understand why Amazon can't just start with "reasonable working standards and a reasonable living wage..." then creepily dick around with "bonus'" like paying for education etc.
Just stop being a corporate dick. is that really so hard to be competitive and NOT also be a corp asshole?
Just stop being a corporate dick. is that really so hard to be competitive and NOT also be a corp asshole?
This year with the labor shortage has shown we need more "basic" employees getting a livable wage than a country full of college educated students chasing white collar positions
This is Amazon attempting to attract more “basic” employees by increasing compensation. Amazon is hoping this program is attractive enough that they do not have to raise cash compensation as much, since these types of strings attached, reimbursement type compensation schemes are vastly cheaper than cash compensation.
It is somewhat beneficial for employees if they were already going to be working a job while going to a school Amazon will pay for, since their tuition would be paid with pre tax dollars.
It is somewhat beneficial for employees if they were already going to be working a job while going to a school Amazon will pay for, since their tuition would be paid with pre tax dollars.
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
> Amazon is now the largest job creator in the U.S., and we know that investing in free skills training for our teams can have a huge impact for hundreds of thousands of families across the country
The impact being them being able to eventually escape the minimum wage slavery that is working for Amazon?
The impact being them being able to eventually escape the minimum wage slavery that is working for Amazon?
doesn't amazon exceed minimum wage for almost all employees?
"As the employer, you may deduct the entire amount that you pay for the employee's educational costs as a business expense"
So in a way it's tax payers who are paying for the education. How? Because more taxes have to be collected elsewhere.
So in a way it's tax payers who are paying for the education. How? Because more taxes have to be collected elsewhere.
As a taxpayer I'm totally down with companies paying for 79% of education instead of 0%.
That's not how it works.
Of course it is. If Amazon didn't pay this education expense they'd pay 21% tax on that money. So the other 71% that would be profit for shareholders is now going to educating the public.
Which year did Amazon pay 21% in federal taxes in USA?
I fully predict that people are going to find a way to spin this that "The COmpany Store is sending its employee to the Education Farm to learn to be Bezos Slaves".
Man, if only they were willing to pay for a masters for me... but I guess I don't matter.
Where is the "Front-Line" there's none! LOL that is funny.
lol. Transfer taxes they didn't pay for front-line employees to front-line employees. [Minus the cut for profit obviously]. Well played.
The government wants to incentivize companies to pay for their worker's education, and amazon's taking up on their offer. What's the issue here? Are you also against individuals transferring "taxes they didn't pay" to their retirement fund, by contributing to their 401k?
looks like they will do anything to avoid paying their employees properly
I suspect it's not because of some nefarious plan to "avoid paying their employees properly" but rather it's more tax efficient to pay for their employees' education (because the compensation isn't subject to payroll tax?).
That's correct. Amazon can deduct the education benefit as a business expense and up to $5,250 is not subject to payroll tax. Neither the employee nor Amazon have to pay taxes on anything up to that sum.
Given the continuing-to-soar cost of education, I'd expect Congress to considerably increase that number. People will increasingly get chained to jobs for education cost reasons like they already are for healthcare cost reasons.
Given the continuing-to-soar cost of education, I'd expect Congress to considerably increase that number. People will increasingly get chained to jobs for education cost reasons like they already are for healthcare cost reasons.
what is "Front-Line" there's no front line at amazon. it's all distributed. I haven't read article FYI. That headline is funny.
Can amozon extend the magnanimity to allow its poor warehouse workers to have decent bathroom breaks!!?
I think I'd rather just do the army for 4 years than work front-line for Amazon.
Go into the Air Force or Navy, if you're just looking for the benefits. Absolutely do not go into the Army or Marines for that purpose.
Maybe cheating since my Army years are done, but same.
Hyperbole?
Not likely. When the US is not at war, joining the armed forces is a viable path for many people: they don't pay you much, but they get your body in shape, take care of your food, housing and medical needs, and accumulate money towards education.
In war time, total deaths per military FTE is often in the 1/1000 rate each year. Obviously your MOS and assignment area are going to be big factors in that -- get assigned to a US base and your risk is less than that of a construction worker.
In war time, total deaths per military FTE is often in the 1/1000 rate each year. Obviously your MOS and assignment area are going to be big factors in that -- get assigned to a US base and your risk is less than that of a construction worker.
> total deaths per military FTE is often in the 1/1000 rate each year
This might derail the thread but I'm genuinely curious to know: if I joined the US military during wartime, what's the statistical chance that I would suffer a non-fatal but still life-changing injury? And what's the chance that I would survive combat with such a severe case of PTSD that it drivese to suicide?
(On the latter point, I've read that significantly more American servicemen have killed themselves after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan than were actually killed while serving in those countries.)
This might derail the thread but I'm genuinely curious to know: if I joined the US military during wartime, what's the statistical chance that I would suffer a non-fatal but still life-changing injury? And what's the chance that I would survive combat with such a severe case of PTSD that it drivese to suicide?
(On the latter point, I've read that significantly more American servicemen have killed themselves after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan than were actually killed while serving in those countries.)
The rate of wounded-but-not dead is about 9x the death rate - if 1/100 get wounded, and of those about 10% die of those wounds. There are lots of available statistics.
So the rate of major injuries falls between those, but the rate of severe PTSD is probably independent.
So the rate of major injuries falls between those, but the rate of severe PTSD is probably independent.
Not as much as you'd think. Not all army work is frontline work. You could be a mechanic fixing Humvees, or a comms-operator being the receiver for a radio post. At least those are the posts I could fill, there's more for sure.
I'd pick it any time over working for Big Jeff.
I'd pick it any time over working for Big Jeff.
You can quit Amazon whenever you want. You can't quit the military.
I was putting both options side by side for a comparison, but you are strictly in the right with what you said.
I still believe that for those that must choose between either option in order to access higher education with no option for an acceptable loan, it's not so clear to me that people (who am I kidding, able-bodied men) would choose Amazon first.
I still believe that for those that must choose between either option in order to access higher education with no option for an acceptable loan, it's not so clear to me that people (who am I kidding, able-bodied men) would choose Amazon first.
Why not pay the employees more and allow them to decide if college or something else is a priority for them?
For the same reason companies give perks of all kinds rather than simply giving employees cash. ...like having a free cafeteria or gym in the office.
The perk provides a win-win by allowing for the company to have group bargaining power, as well as force the expenditure on something that also benefits the company.
These programs are a win-win for the employee-employer relationship.
The perk provides a win-win by allowing for the company to have group bargaining power, as well as force the expenditure on something that also benefits the company.
These programs are a win-win for the employee-employer relationship.
Cafeterias and gyms within the office save employees time which then goes to working. Big win for the corporations.
Going to college offsite, off hours doesn’t immediately benefit the corporation. The investment only benefits the company if the employee “moves up the ranks”.
My understanding from the article is that the benefit is for front line employees. My guess is most do not care for college and would rather take in even 50% of the college tuition
Going to college offsite, off hours doesn’t immediately benefit the corporation. The investment only benefits the company if the employee “moves up the ranks”.
My understanding from the article is that the benefit is for front line employees. My guess is most do not care for college and would rather take in even 50% of the college tuition
[deleted]
Seems like this program will mostly reward those who can somehow survive the Amazon culture, similar to the way Amazon RSUs are back loaded for SWEs.
If the accounts of Amazon front line workers having to pee in cups and being PIP'd for taking lunch breaks is true how could a significant % of workers maintain that level of workload while attending university?
If the accounts of Amazon front line workers having to pee in cups and being PIP'd for taking lunch breaks is true how could a significant % of workers maintain that level of workload while attending university?
I'm skeptical of this. This is essentially the way the GIBill works. They give you just enough money for books and tuition, and rent (while you're actively in school) but for nothing else. I found myself completely exhausted trying to work full time and go to school full time and eventually dropped out.
How the GI Bill works: https://www.va.gov/education/about-gi-bill-benefits/post-9-1...
How the GI Bill works: https://www.va.gov/education/about-gi-bill-benefits/post-9-1...
Except that's not how the GI Bill works; it didn't work that way when I was using it.
I used Post-911 and that was exactly how it worked in 2013.
Source: https://www.va.gov/education/about-gi-bill-benefits/post-9-1...
There were some specific changes two years ago, but it doesn't look like it covers the problems I mentioned: https://www.benefits.va.gov/GIBILL/FGIBSummaries.asp
Feel free to be specific beyond "That's not how the GI Bill works"
Source: https://www.va.gov/education/about-gi-bill-benefits/post-9-1...
There were some specific changes two years ago, but it doesn't look like it covers the problems I mentioned: https://www.benefits.va.gov/GIBILL/FGIBSummaries.asp
Feel free to be specific beyond "That's not how the GI Bill works"
Also for those complaining about the 40hrs/week then you have part-time school on top: this is actually something that a lot of people do. My engineering university is somewhat known for this in Canada, you have classes at 6PM every day of the week + on Saturday. It is absolutely exhausting but everyone in my class that was in that particular situation was more than happy to have the opportunity to do it even if they were +30 years old. At the end of the program they get to be in a much better financial situation and guarantee a better future for their family.