How Amazon Crushes Unions(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How Amazon Crushes Unions
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/technology/amazon-unions-virginia.html
256 comments
> Most stuff you can buy on Amazon these days is the same garbage that is sold on Wish but you pay ~25-50% more for it to come within a couple of days
In my experience, I get most stuff for the same price from other retailers on Amazon, but with fast shipping and the peace of mind that I can return them easily.
In my experience, I get most stuff for the same price from other retailers on Amazon, but with fast shipping and the peace of mind that I can return them easily.
If you're buying from Amazon, you're almost definitely getting comingled inventory - which means even the official retailer themselves can't guarantee it's a genuine product.
Your point still stands about easy returns, although personally I've noticed Amazon adding a lot more friction when I have a problem in the past year or so.
https://www.redpoints.com/blog/amazon-commingled-inventory-m...
Your point still stands about easy returns, although personally I've noticed Amazon adding a lot more friction when I have a problem in the past year or so.
https://www.redpoints.com/blog/amazon-commingled-inventory-m...
I see the commingling thing brought up in every thread like this, but I've never personally, nor has anyone I know IRL, received anything from Amazon that are even suspect of being counterfeit. If they are counterfeit, then they are such high quality counterfeits that I'm not sure I even care.
It's obviously a problem to some extent, but I can't help but think news articles like that blow it way out of proportion.
As for returns, I've notice the opposite: it takes me considerably less time and effort to return an Amazon purchase than, for example, a Target purchase. I actually did both this weekend: for Amazon, I walked into a UPS store, handed them the unpackaged product, they scanned a barcode from my Amazon app, and I walked out. The whole thing took no more than 30 seconds. At Target, I had to wait in a line for 20 minutes at the Returns counter, had to show them the receipt, also had to show them the card I used to purchase, and then the system wasn't refunding the correct amount so a manager had to be called over and re-do the entire process with some sort of override. The entire process took, at minimum, 30 minutes.
I hate Amazon's bullshit union tactics like in the OP, but they are still the undisputed king when it comes to overall shopping experience, IMO. And it's not necessarily because Amazon is actually great, it's more because the other companies are still really far behind.
It's obviously a problem to some extent, but I can't help but think news articles like that blow it way out of proportion.
As for returns, I've notice the opposite: it takes me considerably less time and effort to return an Amazon purchase than, for example, a Target purchase. I actually did both this weekend: for Amazon, I walked into a UPS store, handed them the unpackaged product, they scanned a barcode from my Amazon app, and I walked out. The whole thing took no more than 30 seconds. At Target, I had to wait in a line for 20 minutes at the Returns counter, had to show them the receipt, also had to show them the card I used to purchase, and then the system wasn't refunding the correct amount so a manager had to be called over and re-do the entire process with some sort of override. The entire process took, at minimum, 30 minutes.
I hate Amazon's bullshit union tactics like in the OP, but they are still the undisputed king when it comes to overall shopping experience, IMO. And it's not necessarily because Amazon is actually great, it's more because the other companies are still really far behind.
> I see the commingling thing brought up in every thread like this, but I've never personally, nor has anyone I know IRL, received anything from Amazon that are even suspect of being counterfeit. If they are counterfeit, then they are such high quality counterfeits that I'm not sure I even care.
I wouldn't be so sure, since it's not always easy to spot a counterfeit. Take a charger for instance. A counterfeiter can get the case and packaging perfect, but have substandard & legitimately dangerous electronics inside. I don't have the links handy, but I've seen numerous tear-down comparisons that show examples of this.
I wouldn't be so sure, since it's not always easy to spot a counterfeit. Take a charger for instance. A counterfeiter can get the case and packaging perfect, but have substandard & legitimately dangerous electronics inside. I don't have the links handy, but I've seen numerous tear-down comparisons that show examples of this.
Like I said, if any of the chargers or cords I have received from Amazon are counterfeit, they're good enough counterfeits that I don't care. My iPhone, iPad, and MBP all charge just fine, still have perfectly fine working batteries, have never had any issues with the electronics, and nothing has caught on fire after years of use. The headphones I've bought from Amazon sound great and have given me no issues. The lightbulbs I bought from Amazon light up my room just fine and last a long time. The SSD I bought is blazing fast and has plenty of space (confirmed by multiple diagnostic checks). The clothes I have bought are comfortable and fit well... And if any of these things weren't true, I am confident it would take me extremely minimal effort to return the item to Amazon and buy a replacement.
Obviously counterfeiting is a problem and in an ideal world there would be no counterfeiting at all, but I remain unconvinced that it's something I have to worry about materially affecting my experience as a customer buying stuff from Amazon.
Obviously counterfeiting is a problem and in an ideal world there would be no counterfeiting at all, but I remain unconvinced that it's something I have to worry about materially affecting my experience as a customer buying stuff from Amazon.
they're good enough counterfeits that I don't care
Yet. When one burns down your house, you'll care.
Most people try to head off possibilities like that, rather can just shrug their shoulders and say, "But I saved three dollars!"
Yet. When one burns down your house, you'll care.
Most people try to head off possibilities like that, rather can just shrug their shoulders and say, "But I saved three dollars!"
If at any point I see any evidence or warning that the products I purchase from Amazon cause any material amount of risk to my person or property, I'll reevaluate. In fact, there definitely are some things that I prefer to buy outside of Amazon for such reasons, like climbing gear or medicine.
But as for stuff like chargers, I've had more experience that the easily-frayed genuine Apple Lightning cables, or the classic exploding Samsung phones, are more of an electrical fire risk than anything I've bought from Amazon, counterfeit or not.
But as for stuff like chargers, I've had more experience that the easily-frayed genuine Apple Lightning cables, or the classic exploding Samsung phones, are more of an electrical fire risk than anything I've bought from Amazon, counterfeit or not.
For chargers, I've had some seriously laptop-destroying ones. For phone voltages (ignoring fast charging), it isn't that big of a deal, but USB-C PD laptop chargers I am extremely hesitant to buy on Amazon.
Almost every memory card that isn't Samsung EVO PLUS I've received has been counterfeit.
Almost every memory card that isn't Samsung EVO PLUS I've received has been counterfeit.
I used to think the same, but I received a sorta dodgy SD card from Amazon last year. By dodgy I mean that the graphics on the sticker seemed off compared to my other cards from Sandisk, and it was slower than advertised. It still worked just fine, and I don't want to imply that this is widespread, but it has happened to me.
Can’t you just ask Amazon for a replacement?
Yes, they probably would have given me one, but I just didn't bother as it wasn't a huge issue for me - and also I realized it was dodgy after the return window had closed so didn't want to fight them on that either.
yeah but if they are counterfeit, I just return them
Can you elaborate where do you buy things online from? I want to move away from Amazon, but it's also exhausting to sort through multiple websites for a product, their shipping fees, and make decisions.
Electronics now come to me from Best Buy, Microcenter, and Newegg. Best Buy in particular has faster shipping than Prime. It's frequently overnight for in stock items. At least in my area. And as far as I know, there's no problems with counterfeit goods with them.
Physical books I buy from a small online bookstore I want to support. Oddly enough, they're not much slower than Prime. Even for books not in stock. Plus, they frequently write a nice note, or slip a free zine or custom bookmark into the package. It's a nice touch, and whoever did the packing has equity in the company. They're worker-owned.
Ebooks are still Amazon, though I strip the DRM immediately after purchase so I'm not locked into the Kindle ecosystem. I may try buying a test book from Kobo or Barnes & Noble to see if I can just as easily strip the DRM from them. If so, then I'll probably switch.
Ebay's been good for some stuff. For Pi hobby stuff, I've started buying directly from the various small businesses that specialize. The shipping is longer, but that's not a problem so far.
Some stuff I do buy from Walmart / Sams. They're about as bad as Amazon in many ways, but they do pay their warehouse people a decent wage. Or they did last time I checked. So it's at least marginally better in that respect, and there's not much worry about fake goods from them.
Physical books I buy from a small online bookstore I want to support. Oddly enough, they're not much slower than Prime. Even for books not in stock. Plus, they frequently write a nice note, or slip a free zine or custom bookmark into the package. It's a nice touch, and whoever did the packing has equity in the company. They're worker-owned.
Ebooks are still Amazon, though I strip the DRM immediately after purchase so I'm not locked into the Kindle ecosystem. I may try buying a test book from Kobo or Barnes & Noble to see if I can just as easily strip the DRM from them. If so, then I'll probably switch.
Ebay's been good for some stuff. For Pi hobby stuff, I've started buying directly from the various small businesses that specialize. The shipping is longer, but that's not a problem so far.
Some stuff I do buy from Walmart / Sams. They're about as bad as Amazon in many ways, but they do pay their warehouse people a decent wage. Or they did last time I checked. So it's at least marginally better in that respect, and there's not much worry about fake goods from them.
De-DRM for Kobo works great. It's basically the same as Kindle, there is just another plugin or two to install. Books are usually a bit more expensive. However, it looks like Walmart actually owns Rakuten now, so it's not like you're helping out the little guy much.
Best buy also has a pretty good pickup experience near me. I can order it online and walk over and have it in my hand a couple hours later.
What do you use to strip the DRM from kindle books?
I use DeDRM. Works as a plugin for Calibre. I import the books into Calibre and the DRM is stripped away automatically. Mostly painless.
https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools
https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools
Walmart and Target have improved their web experience a lot, but you still need to avoid the 3rd party sellers there. If you know the brand and the product, ordering direct also works. I also kind of enjoy shopping irl more since it gets me out of the house and basically everything else is closed due to the Rona. I've heard costco has a great 2 hour delivery experience but I don't have a membership.
The effect of Amazon is that at least for now, there's never been a better time to order things online in general. Every website competes with amazon now. Most places ship fast and cheap/free. Sometimes with a minimum order, but same with amazon's add on items. There are exceptions for sure, and I do occasionally still need to buy a thing on Amazon.
Unless you're really into the prime video selection, I suggest everyone cancel their prime and try life without it. I think I got a prorated refund, and you can always reactivate.
The effect of Amazon is that at least for now, there's never been a better time to order things online in general. Every website competes with amazon now. Most places ship fast and cheap/free. Sometimes with a minimum order, but same with amazon's add on items. There are exceptions for sure, and I do occasionally still need to buy a thing on Amazon.
Unless you're really into the prime video selection, I suggest everyone cancel their prime and try life without it. I think I got a prorated refund, and you can always reactivate.
The effect of Amazon is that at least for now, there's never been a better time to order things online in general
This is so true.
When I first started shopping online, it used to take ten days to two weeks to get stuff. Amazon changed that.
Then I remember that before the internet, "Please wait four to six weeks for delivery" was so normal that it was a catch phrase.
This is so true.
When I first started shopping online, it used to take ten days to two weeks to get stuff. Amazon changed that.
Then I remember that before the internet, "Please wait four to six weeks for delivery" was so normal that it was a catch phrase.
I'm not in the US but to me Amazon is something I use maybe twice a year and I buy a lot online and abroad. I even order stuff from the US sometimes and I don't normally use Amazon (or eBay). I don't get why it is so hard to cut out the middleman (Amazon) when it isn't to me when I order from the US. If I find the product on Amazon I just click on to the retailers website and order there.
I'm in the middle of a dense urban area (San Francisco) without a car, and cannot get delivery to home (items are stolen within <60s, carriers ignore all signature requirements and forge their own, mailboxes are crowbarred and broken into).
Amazon is the only vendor with 24 hour lockers for pickup - multiple locations within walking distance. There is no Walmart nearby. There is a Target but the pickup line is basically standing in plague-town for an hour, ~25 min away by bus. Best Buy is about 40-45 min away by bus (you will probably be mugged if you are seen with a BB bag).
Amazon is the only vendor with 24 hour lockers for pickup - multiple locations within walking distance. There is no Walmart nearby. There is a Target but the pickup line is basically standing in plague-town for an hour, ~25 min away by bus. Best Buy is about 40-45 min away by bus (you will probably be mugged if you are seen with a BB bag).
Isn't a bit of "exhaustion" worth to fight back terrible practices ?
I'm not sure what the term for this is; maybe "quorum problem"?
If too few people sustain a boycott, then they suffer without accomplishing their goal, so a net negative.
If enough people sustain a boycott, they'll suffer but will also accomplish their goal, so a net positive.
If too few people sustain a boycott, then they suffer without accomplishing their goal, so a net negative.
If enough people sustain a boycott, they'll suffer but will also accomplish their goal, so a net positive.
For most people, no. I might work through it today and tomorrow but in a few days I'm going to give up and go back to Amazon.
For some things, I try to buy direct. Levis for example. After getting a pair from amazon that was very clearly a factory second or straight up counterfeit, I get them from levis.com. Price is a little higher, but knowing I'm getting good product, and the variety/choice is usually pretty good on their site too. I do this for most "branded" items. Everything else is like best buy or target or home depot etc. That said, I still use amazon quite a bit. But still probably <50% of my online purchases at least. Someone with a more hardline stance or more knowledge of other replacement sites could conceivably cut them out completely. Heck Best Buy and target are so close to my house, I just shop online, and go to curbside pickup an hour later.
This isn't intended to sound braggy: I honestly just don't buy that many non-consumable items? Most years I buy more items as gifts during the holidays than I do for myself the entire rest of the year. This isn't some kind of extreme-frugality thing: I simply can't think of additional things I would want to buy. And most of the purchases I do make are things I put thought into, where I don't mind shopping around a bit or paying a little extra for shipping.
I just really don't understand why people have a hard time giving up Amazon retail, at least when it comes to the majority of HN who can absolutely afford to pay an extra $10 for shipping a few times a year.
I just really don't understand why people have a hard time giving up Amazon retail, at least when it comes to the majority of HN who can absolutely afford to pay an extra $10 for shipping a few times a year.
coctco.com has actually been a good alternative for me. Less selection, sure, but I can usually find everything I actually need. Plus, they seem to treat employees well and aren’t trying to monetize my face/sleep schedule/words/browsing activity/etc.
Besides the other answers, you can also find options at shopping.google.com.
I've made the same changes in recent months and agree that it's improved my consumer experience significantly. I didn't realize just how much time and energy I was spending sorting through cheap Chinese made junk and counterfeit garbage on Amazon trying to find quality products.
In terms of cloud providers: the major three (Azure, GCloud, AWS) seem to be cut from the same cloth... maybe IBM or Oracle cloud are better options (I don't have any experience with either, but both companies obviously have skeleton filled closets)?
In terms of cloud providers: the major three (Azure, GCloud, AWS) seem to be cut from the same cloth... maybe IBM or Oracle cloud are better options (I don't have any experience with either, but both companies obviously have skeleton filled closets)?
Well at least one of the latter definitely has skeletons... [0]
But in all seriousness, Oracle at least has very good free tier to get started. You basically get two free okay-provisioned VMs (lite on the CPU to say the least, but mem and desk okay). Very good for self-hosted your own stuff for free!
[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bl...
But in all seriousness, Oracle at least has very good free tier to get started. You basically get two free okay-provisioned VMs (lite on the CPU to say the least, but mem and desk okay). Very good for self-hosted your own stuff for free!
[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bl...
Oracle's administration interface is horrible. It's an obtuse nonsensical hierarchy, probably specified by someone non-technical writing a requirements document in a vacuum. It'll take you an afternoon to figure out how to get your instances set up, upload your initial image etc. Also your instances will always be behind NAT (having internal IPs), which is odd.
Its redeeming feature is having a free tier that isn't Google. The problem with using Google's cloud is that if someone hacks your account and runs up infinite charges as a personal user, you can't file a credit card dispute without disrupting your entire relationship with Google.
The cloud market still has healthy competition - eg Linode, DigitalOcean, Vultr, and innumerable smaller companies. Patronize them, rather heading than to a different behemoth.
Its redeeming feature is having a free tier that isn't Google. The problem with using Google's cloud is that if someone hacks your account and runs up infinite charges as a personal user, you can't file a credit card dispute without disrupting your entire relationship with Google.
The cloud market still has healthy competition - eg Linode, DigitalOcean, Vultr, and innumerable smaller companies. Patronize them, rather heading than to a different behemoth.
Oh yes, I wasn't saying Oracle was good. It was the usual mess of conflicting systems (e.g. two different ways to do network ACLs...that conflict?).
I personally wouldn't consider them for anything serious. If folks need a free box for something lightweight, those free tier VMs on Oracle are pretty much the only good thing about it. (I have a VPN and a few small services running on it for my own consumption)
I personally wouldn't consider them for anything serious. If folks need a free box for something lightweight, those free tier VMs on Oracle are pretty much the only good thing about it. (I have a VPN and a few small services running on it for my own consumption)
Same here! I pay for servers that I care about, but having another vpn bouncer / exit node is nice. Once you've got some sort of devops setup, it's easy to add more machines. The main bummer was finding out the "two instances" have to be in the same datacenter.
One thing I have noticed is their network seems to have high jitter.
One thing I have noticed is their network seems to have high jitter.
Haha yes they certainly do. One great thing they have is unlimited bandwidth (though I'm sure they throttle after some point), whereas the free tier on Google starts charging you after you reach the 5GB egress mark iirc.
IBM’s cloud platform is laughably bad. Avoid at all costs!
Turning to IBM or Oracle for moral reasons is about the funniest thing I've read in a long time. One enabled the holocaust and the other made 90s-era Microsoft seem downright communist.
I know Oracle has a bad rep and is generally perceived as a corporate monstrosity, but honestly what is actually so bad about their business model? Sure they make a ton of cash fleecing other enterprises but at least it doesn't seem like they're mistreating workers or tracking users. Honestly, it always seemed kind of old-fashioned but not necessarily bad compared to the 'new era' internet giants
Think pragmatically: who would we help by trying to "get back at" an abstract corporate entity for bad things "they" (not even the same people) may have done nearly 100 years ago?
What we're talking about with Amazon is taking steps to actually fight transgressions that are happening right now.
What we're talking about with Amazon is taking steps to actually fight transgressions that are happening right now.
Amazon is doing some rather creepy stuff with the CIA [0]. Can you elaborate on what Oracle did that was so bad? Is charging for software and enforcing license terms somehow worse than what Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc. are doing?
[0]https://www.theregister.com/2018/05/22/aclu_amazon_aws_rekog...
[0]https://www.theregister.com/2018/05/22/aclu_amazon_aws_rekog...
I don't really see how selling facial recognition tech is "rather creepy". Facial recognition has legitimate uses, and the CIA/FBI using it to track criminals seems to be a legitimate use case to me. The article you linked seems to be making a hypothetical leap to "well what if they choose to use it nefariously in the future??" And to their credit, Amazon at least seems to be interested in trying to limit its use to good causes: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/amazon-bans-police-use-of-fa...
And of course, Microsoft, Google, and others have their own facial recognition software and they all have large contracts with government entities, too. This article mentions the CIA using AWS, but the CIA also has multi-billion dollar contracts with GCP, Azure, and even IBM and Oracle: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/cia-awards-multib...
And of course, Microsoft, Google, and others have their own facial recognition software and they all have large contracts with government entities, too. This article mentions the CIA using AWS, but the CIA also has multi-billion dollar contracts with GCP, Azure, and even IBM and Oracle: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/cia-awards-multib...
Yeah, that's all incredibly troubling to me. I'm shocked that so many people fail to see the parallels to historic misuse of technology by states, e.g., IBM and the holocaust as outlined above:
"Mankind barely noticed when the concept of massively organized information quietly emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and a roadmap for group destruction." [0]
Is it unreasonable to desire that your dollars don't go to organizations involved in war, oppression, corruption, etc.?
[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bl...
"Mankind barely noticed when the concept of massively organized information quietly emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and a roadmap for group destruction." [0]
Is it unreasonable to desire that your dollars don't go to organizations involved in war, oppression, corruption, etc.?
[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/bl...
There are legitimate use cases for technology like facial recognition, and I see nothing wrong with using it in that way. Of course society should be cautious about unwarranted uses of such technology. But decrying all uses of it, even legitimate ones, because of a hypothetical "what if someone in the future uses facial recognition to start another holocaust?" is just a slippery slope fallacy.
> Now I only wish I could find a way to move all our infrastructure off AWS
If only there were competing cloud/PaaS services.
If only there were competing cloud/PaaS services.
If only there was a way to buy your own colocation racks and host it yourself.
If only they were competitive.
Azure is about 2/3 of the size of AWS based on market share. Almost 70% of the market uses something other than AWS.
What is it that you know that all those other well-paid professionals don't?
What is it that you know that all those other well-paid professionals don't?
Azure artificially inflates its market share by throwing in MS Office revenue into the mix, which is pretty misleading.
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsoft-keeps-hiding-...
G Cloud was rumored to have to be #2 by 2023 or they'd shut down, and currently they are trailing quite far behind.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21815260
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsoft-keeps-hiding-...
G Cloud was rumored to have to be #2 by 2023 or they'd shut down, and currently they are trailing quite far behind.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21815260
So does AWS. They include revenue from AWS Workmail and other SaaS offerings. Too bad MSFT or GOOG make more money than AWS with their SaaS or "Productive" offerings.
This is probably true, but such a laughably small number of people use Workmail that I doubt it has any material difference to AWS's reported numbers, so while they might not reflect the true AWS marketshare sans-Workmail, it's probably still in the same ballpark. The reason people bring it up in regards to Azure is because it does likely artificially inflate Azure's reported numbers a material amount and makes them harder to trust.
I don't know for sure, but I'd guess MS Office makes up most of the revenue for their cloud offerings. Honestly I think their cloud is mostly a service to push MS Office harder, and they seem to be doing quite well for that.
My point is every cloud vendor needs to break up revenue by IaaS, SaaS, and PaaS. Each one looks strong and bad across segments and hence such a breakup will never happen. But saying AWS or MSFT is #1 misses the dominant segment where they are leading, hides where they are struggling, and gives an incorrect impression.
On the flip side, it'd be interesting to know how many AWS instances are primarly VMWare instances hosting Microsoft Server solutions (or just directly hosting Microsoft Windows products)?
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/learn-why-aws-is-the-be...
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/learn-why-aws-is-the-be...
They're not? I've always seen AWS as the most expensive of the cloud providers. e.g., GPU instances on AWS EC2 vs GCP.
I think a big objection to moving off AWS is a result of enterprises locking in to AWS-specific technologies.
AWS has a lot of neat, domain-specific products and managed services, but it's important to recognize those come with vendor lock-in and that's by design.
If possible, build out your stack to avoid dependence on AWS-only stuff. It's worth it to ask "if I wanted to transition away from AWS in six months, is this addition going to help or hinder that goal?" It's a lot easier to migrate something that uses generic technologies like VM instances, vendor-neutral containerization, and managed databases versus something super specific. And AWS has a lot of super specific stuff, just look at their ever-expanding product list [1].
Once you get away from the specialized domain-specific products, you start to realize that AWS pricing is really nothing special, particularly for VM instances as you've noted.
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/products/
AWS has a lot of neat, domain-specific products and managed services, but it's important to recognize those come with vendor lock-in and that's by design.
If possible, build out your stack to avoid dependence on AWS-only stuff. It's worth it to ask "if I wanted to transition away from AWS in six months, is this addition going to help or hinder that goal?" It's a lot easier to migrate something that uses generic technologies like VM instances, vendor-neutral containerization, and managed databases versus something super specific. And AWS has a lot of super specific stuff, just look at their ever-expanding product list [1].
Once you get away from the specialized domain-specific products, you start to realize that AWS pricing is really nothing special, particularly for VM instances as you've noted.
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/products/
In my experience a lot of senior ops people are still hesitant about Google's cloud services having been burned by them in the past. Google seems to have some reputation problems, however true or untrue they may be.
> Now I only wish I could find a way to move all our infrastructure off AWS...
I've moved to Linode and never looked back.
[UPDATE] Wow. Downvotes for a shout-out to Linode. Didn't know there was so much Linode hate out there. What's up with that? What's wrong with Linode?
I've moved to Linode and never looked back.
[UPDATE] Wow. Downvotes for a shout-out to Linode. Didn't know there was so much Linode hate out there. What's up with that? What's wrong with Linode?
I'll give you some ideas, but you might already know why as you been around for some time.
- Lack of support for your statement. You simply say that you moved there, not why and what made you move, what's better and so on
- You're complaining about down-votes, leading you into the spiral of downvotes as you'll get more down voted by it
- You're talking bad about AWS and Amazon. HN famously have a ton of AWS/Amazon employees here who are quick to downvote any negative sentiment about AWS/Amazon. No, I don't have any proof, but anything mentioning either in a negative way WILL be downvoted, happened time and time again
- Lack of support for your statement. You simply say that you moved there, not why and what made you move, what's better and so on
- You're complaining about down-votes, leading you into the spiral of downvotes as you'll get more down voted by it
- You're talking bad about AWS and Amazon. HN famously have a ton of AWS/Amazon employees here who are quick to downvote any negative sentiment about AWS/Amazon. No, I don't have any proof, but anything mentioning either in a negative way WILL be downvoted, happened time and time again
>Wow. Downvotes for a shout-out to Linode. Didn't know there was so much Linode hate out there. What's up with that? What's wrong with Linode?
I didn't downvote your comment but it reminded me of an old comment about Linode which is still a mystery to me:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10999397
To this day, I have no idea what that was about. Does Linode not do backups?!? Is one of the founders a pedophile?!? Whatever it is, is it unmentionable because of fear of lawsuit?!?
I didn't downvote your comment but it reminded me of an old comment about Linode which is still a mystery to me:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10999397
To this day, I have no idea what that was about. Does Linode not do backups?!? Is one of the founders a pedophile?!? Whatever it is, is it unmentionable because of fear of lawsuit?!?
Um, like, duuuuh. If you're gonna buy cheap Chinese junk, skip the Amazon middleman and go straight to Alibaba.
With so many "Amazon" sellers just rebranding cheap Chinese stuff, it really is better to just go backward in the chain. I suspect that you probably get fewer "counterfeits" since you are looking for "Thing that does <X>" instead of "Brand <Y> thingit."
With so many "Amazon" sellers just rebranding cheap Chinese stuff, it really is better to just go backward in the chain. I suspect that you probably get fewer "counterfeits" since you are looking for "Thing that does <X>" instead of "Brand <Y> thingit."
I'm seeing food delivery places like uber eats, globo etc able to become pickers for local stores (at least here in Europe). Now I only need some way to order online from local stores and have it automatically sent to me via bike courier.
I honestly can't understand how anybody sleeps at night writing software for Amazon, at this point. Maybe it's easier to justify to yourself if you work at AWS and not directly on the retail side of things, who knows.
I'm not going to try and cast judgement on individuals' circumstances, I just experience genuine confusion that Amazon can (apparently) still attract top-ish talent.
I'm not going to try and cast judgement on individuals' circumstances, I just experience genuine confusion that Amazon can (apparently) still attract top-ish talent.
Walmart has been doing this around here (car not bike). Too bad they will substitute a "similar" item when their stock is not correct, which is always.
The "similar" item is not similar enough in my experience.
The "similar" item is not similar enough in my experience.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228324/amazon-whole-foo...
"a “diversity index” represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity"
"a “diversity index” represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity"
> Amazon managers openly warned recruits that if they liked things comfortable, this would be a difficult, perhaps impossible, job. For customer service representatives, it was difficult to keep up, according to media accounts and labor organizers. Overtime was mandatory. Supervisors sent emails with subject headings like “YOU CAN SLEEP WHEN YOU’RE DEAD.”
Umm, yikes.
Umm, yikes.
Imagine being in a position where you have to choose between putting up with this hostile bullshit or going hungry/evicted.
Most of us here could tell our bosses to f off and either have enough savings for months (or even years), or at the very least get another job within weeks or days. Even having grown up lower-middle class with zero, often negative, extra money, going years without vacation, etc., it's hard to wrap my head around being forced to deal with abusive supervisors and coworkers because the alternative might be homelessness within weeks.
Most of us here could tell our bosses to f off and either have enough savings for months (or even years), or at the very least get another job within weeks or days. Even having grown up lower-middle class with zero, often negative, extra money, going years without vacation, etc., it's hard to wrap my head around being forced to deal with abusive supervisors and coworkers because the alternative might be homelessness within weeks.
> Imagine being in a position where you have to choose between putting up with this hostile bullshit or going hungry/evicted.
Yes, this is exactly why we got the idea of unions in the first place. Without unions we would still be forced to work at least 6 days a week, and many more drawbacks. The list is huge of what unions have given us (in Europe at least).
Yes, this is exactly why we got the idea of unions in the first place. Without unions we would still be forced to work at least 6 days a week, and many more drawbacks. The list is huge of what unions have given us (in Europe at least).
How does someone get into that position? Are public schools so bad that people come out with no marketable unique skills that would give them natural job security?
What jobs have natural job security? Either you’re protected by a union, a professional association, or having a rare and valuable skill set. The unions have been busted, professional associations are exclusive by their nature and most people definitionally do not have rare and marketable skills. As a result, an increasingly large fraction of jobs are gig work, part-time, or on contract. That includes work in law and software engineering. Precarity is the natural state of an unregulated, de-unionized job market and it is not a bug but a feature. It has little to do with our public schools.
Massive deindustrialization is a huge part of it in the US. There aren't many decent blue collar jobs anymore.
Unique skills are rare by definition.
Each individual skill may be rare, but given how many thousands of different skills there are, the trait of having some rare skill should be common.
But that doesn't mean that it's going to be valued by the market. If it's not valued by the market, the fact that it's rare doesn't help you.
For a high market price, you need the intersection of a scarce skill (low-supply in labor market) that provides value to other people (high-demand in the labor market). Being a good software engineer is an example - low-supply and high-demand, therefore high wage/salary.
For a high market price, you need the intersection of a scarce skill (low-supply in labor market) that provides value to other people (high-demand in the labor market). Being a good software engineer is an example - low-supply and high-demand, therefore high wage/salary.
> Are public schools so bad that people come out with no marketable unique skills that would give them natural job security?
Yes, but that's not the only issue. Some people are incapable of managing their own affairs. Showing up to work on time, not drunk is not in their personal capacity. It's not really their fault; we are not the authors of our neurobiology.
Yes, but that's not the only issue. Some people are incapable of managing their own affairs. Showing up to work on time, not drunk is not in their personal capacity. It's not really their fault; we are not the authors of our neurobiology.
There are plenty of alcoholics who can show up to work and wait until afterwards to get drunk. There is a certain level of choice to being so egregious about it that you reek of whisky at a meeting, even if that choice is just saying "f it."
Choice is an illusion, a story our brain tells itself to feel better about the reality our consciousness is largely just a witness too.
Coworker who lasted two weeks at Amazon before quitting, “I saw a poster that read, ‘You can work, smarter, harder, or longer, but you can’t pick just two.’”
When they called to find out why he wasn’t at work on Sunday, and told him they don’t usually give stock grants to people with such a limited investment in the company, that was the end of it.
If you’ve ever been in the parts of Seattle they’re in, they tend to take up the whole sidewalk. Different coworker called them Amholes. After working a contract there I figured out it isn’t because those people have huge egos. It’s because they’re zombies. Surprised more of them don’t get hit by cars.
When they called to find out why he wasn’t at work on Sunday, and told him they don’t usually give stock grants to people with such a limited investment in the company, that was the end of it.
If you’ve ever been in the parts of Seattle they’re in, they tend to take up the whole sidewalk. Different coworker called them Amholes. After working a contract there I figured out it isn’t because those people have huge egos. It’s because they’re zombies. Surprised more of them don’t get hit by cars.
Supervisors sent emails with subject headings like “YOU CAN SLEEP WHEN YOU’RE DEAD.”
This is what happens when the Silicon Valley startup festishists end up in charge in the real world.
This is what happens when the Silicon Valley startup festishists end up in charge in the real world.
For reference, Amazon's anti-union site:
https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/
I have to say, I'm kind of creeped out by union dues. It just feels less about workers helping themselves and more like some workers creating a new power structure and job roles that they can enjoy.
Unions are like governments. I am pro big-government (generally), but it is effectively a coordinated power structure. That power structure, like any, can be corrupt/etc.
So i like unions (and have been a member of one), generally, in the same way i like governments. However they need clarity, visibility, and structures to answer to its members. A god-king union is no better than a god-king government.
Imo, they're work. They require care to exist properly, just like governments. But when done right, they're the only source of citizen power in the workforce. Especially in the modern day of mega corporations.
So i like unions (and have been a member of one), generally, in the same way i like governments. However they need clarity, visibility, and structures to answer to its members. A god-king union is no better than a god-king government.
Imo, they're work. They require care to exist properly, just like governments. But when done right, they're the only source of citizen power in the workforce. Especially in the modern day of mega corporations.
without the power afforded by money to the union, it cannot stand up to the company. the dues are functionally an insurance payment for security in your job.
this comment is similar to saying:
i'm kinda creeped out by car insurance payments. it just feels less about protecting other drivers and more about enriching the insurance companies.
you are right that it does create a new power structure and job roles, that's the point of it! the money you pay is also part of the strike pay you'd get back.
this comment is similar to saying:
i'm kinda creeped out by car insurance payments. it just feels less about protecting other drivers and more about enriching the insurance companies.
you are right that it does create a new power structure and job roles, that's the point of it! the money you pay is also part of the strike pay you'd get back.
> i'm kinda creeped out by car insurance payments. it just feels less about protecting other drivers and more about enriching the insurance companies.
Yeah, me too! And health and homeowners insurance while we're at it. All systems seemingly meant to exploit statistics for the betterment of us all...and yet the 20 most expensive homes in my city growing up were owned by insurance execs... What an oddity!
Yeah, me too! And health and homeowners insurance while we're at it. All systems seemingly meant to exploit statistics for the betterment of us all...and yet the 20 most expensive homes in my city growing up were owned by insurance execs... What an oddity!
Fortunately unions aren't for profit so that's generally less of a concern
Yeah, unions deal in a different currency than dollars. The rest of it works much the same way.
It's easy to profit when citizens are forced by government to pay you in order for them to do their business.
A union is like a democracy, it can be elective where you can naively hope that the elected people will be honest and incorruptible or it can be participative where you must participate in the union in order for it to succeed.
Things unions offer with those dues:
Legal support - your boss has done something you disagree with
Strike fund - in the worse case the union uses its savings to support the members for a strike
Full time reps - this is perhaps the one most open to abuse, but in my experience union reps fight for the workers - otherwise they get sacked, they are elected positions.
Pay for legal advice - essential when fighting the big boys
And what you would hope is by paying union dues that your pay rise more than covers the union due.
The fact that amazon is fighting against it so hard, you can only assume its good for workers pay.
Legal support - your boss has done something you disagree with
Strike fund - in the worse case the union uses its savings to support the members for a strike
Full time reps - this is perhaps the one most open to abuse, but in my experience union reps fight for the workers - otherwise they get sacked, they are elected positions.
Pay for legal advice - essential when fighting the big boys
And what you would hope is by paying union dues that your pay rise more than covers the union due.
The fact that amazon is fighting against it so hard, you can only assume its good for workers pay.
> It just feels less about workers helping themselves and more like some workers creating a new power structure and job roles that they can enjoy.
When you have one organized power structure that is using its power to exploit people, the only real way to combat it is with another organized power structure.
Bezoes is worth $196 billion. You're not going to be able to effectively push back against that with bake sales.
When you have one organized power structure that is using its power to exploit people, the only real way to combat it is with another organized power structure.
Bezoes is worth $196 billion. You're not going to be able to effectively push back against that with bake sales.
And your suggested way to operate an organisation without money is...?
there is a nice answer:
https://justdue.it/
I have to ask as I'm really uncertain and also European, so this whole debate is a bit strange for me.
Is that an ironic website supposed to give the union a boost/shit on Amazon or is this a real attempt on getting people to dislike paying unions their due? I could not help but to laugh at some of the arguments in it, hence my question. It doesn't seem very sincere.
Is that an ironic website supposed to give the union a boost/shit on Amazon or is this a real attempt on getting people to dislike paying unions their due? I could not help but to laugh at some of the arguments in it, hence my question. It doesn't seem very sincere.
Built and hosted on squarespace. Noted.
The union drive Amazon is truely scared of is not of warehouse workers, its of their very hard to replace, highly skilled tech workers. FC workers are on the path to elimination through reliance on robotics. The last steps to full automation, automating picking and packing, are being chipped away by new boxing machines for example. Amazon currently estimates it could have the tech to fully automate all FC's in about 10 years. However, Amazon knows that if FC workers can beat them then other groups are soon to follow, groups with much more education, resources, political connections, and leverage. This is why they fired Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa over their tweats. They needed to show tech workers that if you publically support FC workers in their drive for better working conditions you will be fired. If you want to really bring Amazon to heel then unionize the tech workers.
Refs: 1. https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-reportedly-uses-boxing-mach...
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-warehouse-idUS...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...
Refs: 1. https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-reportedly-uses-boxing-mach...
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-warehouse-idUS...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/13/amazon-...
What I don't see mentioned in the article are right-to-work states. While still effective to a degree, unions tend to have much less bite in these states. I'm left to wonder if Amazon would have the heft/ability to simply relocate all manual labor to states with right-to-work as law, or if that kind of move would be outside of union-busting laws.
> simply relocate all manual labor to states with right-to-work as law
You can't really relocate warehouses and shipping centers without throwing a wrench in the logistics of the supply chain, especially if you are in the next-day delivery business.
You can't really relocate warehouses and shipping centers without throwing a wrench in the logistics of the supply chain, especially if you are in the next-day delivery business.
I've worked several years in the logistics sector and watched as that happened several times during inclement weather cycles. The logistics supply chain is much more nimble than you might think.
That works for emergency/temporary logistics where you can temporarily absorb the increased costs as part of doing business.
For national logistics, limiting your warehouses to right-to-work states will increase costs so dramatically you would save money dealing with unions.
For national logistics, limiting your warehouses to right-to-work states will increase costs so dramatically you would save money dealing with unions.
Alabama is a right to work state. Amazon is telling people at the Bessemer warehouse that they could be forced to pay union dues whether or not they join the union, which is not true under Alabama law.
However the US Congress is pushing the PRO Act which will basically force you to join any union and it actually forbids right to work laws. It will even permit unions marching against related businesses as a means to intimidate others; in others say your supplier has issues well they can then march on you and vica versa.
Welcome to the pay off for the election
Welcome to the pay off for the election
Picketing has been legal for a long, long time. There's no law now that says I can't go out and picket on the sidewalk outside Whole Foods or Walmart.
The commenter is referring to what's called a "secondary strike". These are heavily regulated under current law (https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/se...) and the PRO act would repeal these rules.
A secondary strike is only one kind of action, and "march on" does not clearly indicate a secondary strike although it may include that. Bannering or leafletting and other types of protest could fall under "march on", could they not?
It's legal right now, even as clarified in the link you provided, to encourage a boycott of a struck product at a retailer. What's not legal is organizing a boycott of a whole store because they are stocking one or a few products from a supplier whose products are struck. That is, unless it's a company store that is the same employer as the producer of the products for which production is under a strike.
It's legal right now, even as clarified in the link you provided, to encourage a boycott of a struck product at a retailer. What's not legal is organizing a boycott of a whole store because they are stocking one or a few products from a supplier whose products are struck. That is, unless it's a company store that is the same employer as the producer of the products for which production is under a strike.
They used to avoid certain states for reasons like that (also sales tax), but now that they're going for same day or 1 day delivery it isn't feasible to do that anymore. For example, Amazon didn't have any warehouses in Illinois until 2014.
Fortunely crushing unions is not a legal in many countries.
As for everyone that gives money to Amazon, and praises their FOSS offerings, this is what evil companies do in practice.
As for everyone that gives money to Amazon, and praises their FOSS offerings, this is what evil companies do in practice.
> Fortunely crushing unions is not a legal in many countries.
Unfortunately, some companies like Amazon seems to simply include "break labor laws" on their balance statements in the end of the year, as they keep breaking the laws in order to save short-term costs.
Unfortunately, some companies like Amazon seems to simply include "break labor laws" on their balance statements in the end of the year, as they keep breaking the laws in order to save short-term costs.
That only works as long as no one reports them to the respective goverment departments.
And if you've grown so big that there will be one or two reports every month, make sure you lobby the right people in the government departments.
Not all countries have the same corruption level.
For any business running at scale, this is a math problem. if the cost of human labor rises, more investment will be made to remove humans from the process and replace them with technology. Amazon was one of the great employers through Coronavirus. Perhaps people should think one step ahead.
Thinking one step ahead is a luxury afforded to people whose current step has them safe, healthy, and able to put food on the table.
Like the unions didn't already destroy America's auto industry. Now they want to do the same to the tech industry. Supervisors can't talk directly with union workers, they have to go through unions first. Who on earth think this is a good idea? It kills productivity and I'm not even talking about the foreseeable protests down the road. Unions don't work in tech business where you need to break rules and move fast. It kills the big corporations in a few years and subsequently kills the entire job market that it was meant to protect. Ask the residents in Detroit. Now they have no jobs, or jobs with half of the pay before. Happy now?
> where you need to break rules and move fast
Dude, we tried this. Now people in the US can't have reasonable arguments in public without wanting to kill one another. People somehow gets "cancelled" now, because some 20s-something wanted to "move fast" without thinking of the consequences.
Maybe it's time we try "slow and steady" and see if the world actually ends up more equal and diverse, instead of the opposite, which is the direction we're heading now.
And for the record, if unions hadn't existed, you'd still be slaving away 6 days a week (minimum), 10 hours a day, your children would be working instead of going to school and everything labor related would certainly have been worse. Worth considering since you seem to hold the opinion that "all unions are bad" just because the US is shitty at creating and maintaining unions.
Dude, we tried this. Now people in the US can't have reasonable arguments in public without wanting to kill one another. People somehow gets "cancelled" now, because some 20s-something wanted to "move fast" without thinking of the consequences.
Maybe it's time we try "slow and steady" and see if the world actually ends up more equal and diverse, instead of the opposite, which is the direction we're heading now.
And for the record, if unions hadn't existed, you'd still be slaving away 6 days a week (minimum), 10 hours a day, your children would be working instead of going to school and everything labor related would certainly have been worse. Worth considering since you seem to hold the opinion that "all unions are bad" just because the US is shitty at creating and maintaining unions.
> Dude, we tried this. Now people in the US can't have reasonable arguments in public without wanting to kill one another.
Best answer.
(don't think unions would have changed anything on that point though)
Best answer.
(don't think unions would have changed anything on that point though)
> if unions hadn't existed, you'd still be slaving away 6 days a week (minimum), 10 hours a day, your children would be working instead of going to school and everything labor related would certainly have been worse.
This is not historically accurate.
For example, Henry Ford actually increased wages (without worrying about unions, and he had literal enforcers to bully people.)
He claimed to be doing it for altruistic reasons, and so that workers in his plants could afford a Ford, but the real reason was because he had to, because people could choose to work elsewhere, even if they had to move. Also, he attracted people from other cities and states to move to Dearborn.
This is the real antidote to union-busting and union-towns. Any job that basically needs a person can always be paid minimally, but multiple employers have to compete for that person; perhaps an alternative job is far away, but mobile people will always be worth more because their market is larger. It was a bit different 150 years ago during the Industrial Revolution, because of information asymmetry and the cost of relocation.
So why form a union? Just get a better job from an employer that literally values you more. It's not like these companies don't exist.
This is not historically accurate.
For example, Henry Ford actually increased wages (without worrying about unions, and he had literal enforcers to bully people.)
He claimed to be doing it for altruistic reasons, and so that workers in his plants could afford a Ford, but the real reason was because he had to, because people could choose to work elsewhere, even if they had to move. Also, he attracted people from other cities and states to move to Dearborn.
This is the real antidote to union-busting and union-towns. Any job that basically needs a person can always be paid minimally, but multiple employers have to compete for that person; perhaps an alternative job is far away, but mobile people will always be worth more because their market is larger. It was a bit different 150 years ago during the Industrial Revolution, because of information asymmetry and the cost of relocation.
So why form a union? Just get a better job from an employer that literally values you more. It's not like these companies don't exist.
> Just get a better job from an employer that literally values you more.
For most people your statement sounds like a joke. You can't "Just get a better job".
Most people are stuck in their jobs, that's why they have to put up with the bullshit from managers and customers.
Entire shitty industries wouldn't exist if people weren't blackmailable into working bad jobs.
Please please, get out of your circumstances and try to imagine how others have to live before making generalized statements like that.
For most people your statement sounds like a joke. You can't "Just get a better job".
Most people are stuck in their jobs, that's why they have to put up with the bullshit from managers and customers.
Entire shitty industries wouldn't exist if people weren't blackmailable into working bad jobs.
Please please, get out of your circumstances and try to imagine how others have to live before making generalized statements like that.
"This is not historically accurate." and then uses one story about Henry Ford as evidence, really?
Read up a bit on unions and their impact on the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union), and come back with more stories about how a business owner raised his employees salaries so therefore unions are not useful where salaries are not being raised...
Read up a bit on unions and their impact on the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union), and come back with more stories about how a business owner raised his employees salaries so therefore unions are not useful where salaries are not being raised...
For the kill each other, it's really a deep deep issue in education. Nothing to do with anything else really. You have to educate kids into a sort of national unity thinking.
I come from France, and we're not perfect, far from it. But I was raised, not so long ago, to tolerate very diverging opinions. I enjoy debating calmly with communists, nationalists, muslims or europeanists. As long as we agree France comes first, our little divergences second, I stay polite and agree to disagree. After all, they may be right, and I wrong, so I just discuss to gain perspective.
What I see in US debates is that everything seems so existential. Hearing someone disagree is so painful and deeply disturbing, on both sides (there seems to be only 2, another problem), that people I see debate seem to forget that end of the day, they and their descendants will have to live together forever. Better embrace the fact it's done and final, and start finding little ways to be nice about it.
I come from France, and we're not perfect, far from it. But I was raised, not so long ago, to tolerate very diverging opinions. I enjoy debating calmly with communists, nationalists, muslims or europeanists. As long as we agree France comes first, our little divergences second, I stay polite and agree to disagree. After all, they may be right, and I wrong, so I just discuss to gain perspective.
What I see in US debates is that everything seems so existential. Hearing someone disagree is so painful and deeply disturbing, on both sides (there seems to be only 2, another problem), that people I see debate seem to forget that end of the day, they and their descendants will have to live together forever. Better embrace the fact it's done and final, and start finding little ways to be nice about it.
A lot of this stems from the two-party system, which stems from the first-past-the-post voting system. While in France and elsewhere there is a lot of change in the political landscape (Macron's current party didn't exist 5 years ago), in the US parties are very deeply entrenched. This causes an "us vs them" situation, where people don't change sides ever, look at the other side with more than skepticism, and every issue quickly becomes partisan as half the population disagrees with the change merely because the other party brought it up.
While I'm sympathetic to the argument that the rise of social media has contributed to the absolute degeneration of public discourse, blaming social media as the cause rather than the means strikes me as particularly hollow when measured by previous historical periods of civil unrest. Whatever the actual causes--nascent technological catalysis, changing property relations or elite culture, or whatever the God's-eye picture of its real etiology--this phenomena is recurring throughout human history. Sometimes mobs (viz. mass-movements, factions, parties) form and mobs, like houses, cannot stand divided. Competing mobs become one mob or destroy each other.
Consider this letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge in 1797:
"The passions are too high at present to be cooled in our day. You and I have formerly seen warm debates and high political passions. But gentlemen of different politics would then speak to each other, and separate the business of the senate from that of society. It is not so now. Men who have been intimate all their lives cross the streets to avoid meeting, and turn their heads another way, lest they should be obliged to touch their hat. This may do for young men, with whom passion is enjoiment. But it is afflicting to peaceable minds."^1
Or Jefferson's retrospective of the 1800 election:
"we suffered ourselves, as you so well expressed it, to be the passive subjects of public discussions. and these discussions, whether relating to men, measures, or opinions, were conducted by the parties with an animosity, a bitterness, and an indecency, which had never been exceeded. All the resources of reason, and of wrath, were exhausted by each party in support of its own, and to prostrate the adversary opinions. one was upbraided with recieving the Antifederalists, the other the old tories & refugees into their bosom. of this acrimony the public papers of the day exhibit ample testimony in the debates of Congress, of state legislatures, of stump-orators, in addresses, answers, and newspaper essays. and to these without question may be added, the private correspondence of individuals; and the less guarded in these, because not meant for the public eye, not restrained by the respect due to that; but poured forth from the overflowings of the heart into the bosom of a friend, as a momentary easement of our feelings. in this way, and in answers to addresses, you & I could indulge ourselves. we have probably done it, sometimes with warmth, often with prejudice, but always, as we believed, adhering to truth. I have not examined my letters of that day. I have no stomach to revive the memory of it’s feelings."^2
This is not unique to America or even to modernity. A broad reading of history shows that any human society, given enough time, will encounter periods when the stars align and there's a general degradation of civility, sometimes erupting in bloodshed, sometimes being remembered as a generally unpleasant time not to be spoken about.
The problems with American culture in particular being reduced to increasingly hostile and superficial tribal allegiances have antecedents dating back decades, well before AOL was even a thing.^4 The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1985 enabled one-sided echo chambers to emerge via all extant communications media (notable in particular is the emergence of conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh).^5
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been."^6
---
1 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0...
2 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6076
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
4 http://txti.es/technorealism
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
Consider this letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge in 1797:
"The passions are too high at present to be cooled in our day. You and I have formerly seen warm debates and high political passions. But gentlemen of different politics would then speak to each other, and separate the business of the senate from that of society. It is not so now. Men who have been intimate all their lives cross the streets to avoid meeting, and turn their heads another way, lest they should be obliged to touch their hat. This may do for young men, with whom passion is enjoiment. But it is afflicting to peaceable minds."^1
Or Jefferson's retrospective of the 1800 election:
"we suffered ourselves, as you so well expressed it, to be the passive subjects of public discussions. and these discussions, whether relating to men, measures, or opinions, were conducted by the parties with an animosity, a bitterness, and an indecency, which had never been exceeded. All the resources of reason, and of wrath, were exhausted by each party in support of its own, and to prostrate the adversary opinions. one was upbraided with recieving the Antifederalists, the other the old tories & refugees into their bosom. of this acrimony the public papers of the day exhibit ample testimony in the debates of Congress, of state legislatures, of stump-orators, in addresses, answers, and newspaper essays. and to these without question may be added, the private correspondence of individuals; and the less guarded in these, because not meant for the public eye, not restrained by the respect due to that; but poured forth from the overflowings of the heart into the bosom of a friend, as a momentary easement of our feelings. in this way, and in answers to addresses, you & I could indulge ourselves. we have probably done it, sometimes with warmth, often with prejudice, but always, as we believed, adhering to truth. I have not examined my letters of that day. I have no stomach to revive the memory of it’s feelings."^2
This is not unique to America or even to modernity. A broad reading of history shows that any human society, given enough time, will encounter periods when the stars align and there's a general degradation of civility, sometimes erupting in bloodshed, sometimes being remembered as a generally unpleasant time not to be spoken about.
The problems with American culture in particular being reduced to increasingly hostile and superficial tribal allegiances have antecedents dating back decades, well before AOL was even a thing.^4 The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1985 enabled one-sided echo chambers to emerge via all extant communications media (notable in particular is the emergence of conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh).^5
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been."^6
---
1 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-29-02-0...
2 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6076
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
4 http://txti.es/technorealism
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
Thanks for your thoughtful reply! As I don't know much about the US, I thank you for linking those documents, will make good reading.
I agree that my first argument was hollow and I don't blame it all on social media. I guess the "social media" aspect of HN actually makes me sometimes rewrite my speech to make more impact than to be 100% expanded to explain my viewpoint, mostly to not bore people.
I agree that my first argument was hollow and I don't blame it all on social media. I guess the "social media" aspect of HN actually makes me sometimes rewrite my speech to make more impact than to be 100% expanded to explain my viewpoint, mostly to not bore people.
And trade policy and inferior products didn't play a role, it's all labors fault?
There's no such thing as an auto company that doesn't depend on government subsidies. The auto industry is up there with agriculture as one of the most dependent on governments subsidizing them for them to even exist
If improving worker safety (in this case, literally saving hundreds of lives each year) and paying workers a living wage makes your already heavily subsidized company go bust, maybe the company shouldn't have existed in the first place?
Worker's health shouldn't be an economic externality
If improving worker safety (in this case, literally saving hundreds of lives each year) and paying workers a living wage makes your already heavily subsidized company go bust, maybe the company shouldn't have existed in the first place?
Worker's health shouldn't be an economic externality
"Supervisors can't talk directly with union workers, they have to go through unions first."
Is this actually the case? Because this seems like a childish caricature of unions. Could you point me to examples where unions actually implemented this and why?
Is this actually the case? Because this seems like a childish caricature of unions. Could you point me to examples where unions actually implemented this and why?
You seem to be confusing Amazon the dotcom, where smart people advance the state of the art of web infrastructure, and Amazon the parcel-sending concern, where the duration of restroom breaks of minimum-wage warehouse workers is aggressively monitored.
> Supervisors can't talk directly with union workers, they have to go through unions first.
I've never heard of this before. The idea that a supervisor cannot talk to a unionized employee at all is extreme, to say the least. Having the union there during disciplinary hearings? Sure. All meetings?
Do you have any examples?
I've never heard of this before. The idea that a supervisor cannot talk to a unionized employee at all is extreme, to say the least. Having the union there during disciplinary hearings? Sure. All meetings?
Do you have any examples?
I know I shouldn't, but this is beautiful. You've taken every low-understanding drunk-uncle anti-union take and have written some true troll poetry.
This historical perspective is so shallow, and your understanding of the motivation of those involved is so one sided that it's hard to think of anything that might let some light in.
I'll try. Years ago Business owners so mistreated their workers that the workers decided to form unions. This was not easy, as nobody was really on the side of the workers. So it made it easy to bash their heads in. It took many years of many people risking and losing their lives and livelihoods until public support turned towards the strikers. Finally places like Ford had to negotiate rather than curbstomp[1].
This was a win. Rather than relying on the arbitrary benevolence of various ownerships, we codified the 40 hour workweek, overtime, vacation days and sick leave among other things.
Then WWII happened, and the US was the only industrialized nation that was left unscathed. That meant the world wanted to buy our products because for the most part, we were the only ones making products at all. This is the beginning and end of a lot of Americans understanding of our economy and our place in the world. It's why Reagan and Trump were successful with the "Let's / Make America Great Again" mantra.
Because we decided to kill ourselves to be anti-communist, we decided to have very favorable trade policies for places we were formerly at war with, like Japan. That meant we rolled out the red carpet for those cheap little imports. Unions had nothing to do with this.
US automakers did not take the foreign competition seriously. They were too busy trying to defend leaded gasoline and trying to destroy Ralph Nader's reputation because he suggested we have seatbelts. Unions had nothing to do with this either.
The 70's happened. The previously decimated world economies were rebuilt and ready to compete. Americans started to buy more stuff from overseas. Oil became scarce. Stupid self-owns by the US Auto manufacturers gave American cars a reputation for being shit. For one thing, they were so damn heavy that components would break faster. A heavy V8 has more stuff to fail than a little inline four. Again, Unions were not the ones designing the cars.
No one in Detroit blames the Unions. Except maybe historically illiterate managers and engineers. I know, I used carry their golf clubs and clean their boats. Everyone else typically blames NAFTA, consumers buying imports, and the management/ownership of the Big 3.
But here we are. Big companies can outsource. Private Equity can pillage. Agriculture and the meat industry can hire migrant workers with little impediment. But unions are bad because once in awhile a manager has to wait because of work-rules. Or every once in awhile a steward will get busted for corruption. Or "there's this guy who shows up drunk and they can't fire him." I know a drunk incompetent guy who can't get fired too. He makes $500k and is a nephew of a billionaire. Every charge in a unions-are-bad screed can usually be turned around right back at the management/ownership class.
...
This article was about the distribution side of Amazon. Not tech. That being said, I program for a living. I get paid pretty well because I don't move fast and I don't break things. Tech professionals need at least a professional guild. But, they think they are special so they will squander the era when they actually have organizing power.
...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass
This historical perspective is so shallow, and your understanding of the motivation of those involved is so one sided that it's hard to think of anything that might let some light in.
I'll try. Years ago Business owners so mistreated their workers that the workers decided to form unions. This was not easy, as nobody was really on the side of the workers. So it made it easy to bash their heads in. It took many years of many people risking and losing their lives and livelihoods until public support turned towards the strikers. Finally places like Ford had to negotiate rather than curbstomp[1].
This was a win. Rather than relying on the arbitrary benevolence of various ownerships, we codified the 40 hour workweek, overtime, vacation days and sick leave among other things.
Then WWII happened, and the US was the only industrialized nation that was left unscathed. That meant the world wanted to buy our products because for the most part, we were the only ones making products at all. This is the beginning and end of a lot of Americans understanding of our economy and our place in the world. It's why Reagan and Trump were successful with the "Let's / Make America Great Again" mantra.
Because we decided to kill ourselves to be anti-communist, we decided to have very favorable trade policies for places we were formerly at war with, like Japan. That meant we rolled out the red carpet for those cheap little imports. Unions had nothing to do with this.
US automakers did not take the foreign competition seriously. They were too busy trying to defend leaded gasoline and trying to destroy Ralph Nader's reputation because he suggested we have seatbelts. Unions had nothing to do with this either.
The 70's happened. The previously decimated world economies were rebuilt and ready to compete. Americans started to buy more stuff from overseas. Oil became scarce. Stupid self-owns by the US Auto manufacturers gave American cars a reputation for being shit. For one thing, they were so damn heavy that components would break faster. A heavy V8 has more stuff to fail than a little inline four. Again, Unions were not the ones designing the cars.
No one in Detroit blames the Unions. Except maybe historically illiterate managers and engineers. I know, I used carry their golf clubs and clean their boats. Everyone else typically blames NAFTA, consumers buying imports, and the management/ownership of the Big 3.
But here we are. Big companies can outsource. Private Equity can pillage. Agriculture and the meat industry can hire migrant workers with little impediment. But unions are bad because once in awhile a manager has to wait because of work-rules. Or every once in awhile a steward will get busted for corruption. Or "there's this guy who shows up drunk and they can't fire him." I know a drunk incompetent guy who can't get fired too. He makes $500k and is a nephew of a billionaire. Every charge in a unions-are-bad screed can usually be turned around right back at the management/ownership class.
...
This article was about the distribution side of Amazon. Not tech. That being said, I program for a living. I get paid pretty well because I don't move fast and I don't break things. Tech professionals need at least a professional guild. But, they think they are special so they will squander the era when they actually have organizing power.
...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Overpass
I don't get it, why do workers need to vote in order to start/join a union?
Why would the company care if they do join a union? Can't they simply refuse to negotiate with the union?
Why would the company care if they do join a union? Can't they simply refuse to negotiate with the union?
"Your Right to Form a Union
"Not represented by a union, but want to be? If a majority of workers wants to form a union, they can select a union in one of two ways: If at least 30% of workers sign cards or a petition saying they want a union, the NLRB will conduct an election. If a majority of those who vote choose the union, the NLRB will certify the union as your representative for collective bargaining. An election is not the only way a union can become your representative. Your employer may voluntarily recognize a union based on evidence - typically signed union-authorization cards - that a majority of employees want it to represent them. Once a union has been certified or recognized, the employer is required to bargain over your terms and conditions of employment with your union representative. Special rules apply in the construction industry."
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/whats-law
That's in the US obviously.
"Not represented by a union, but want to be? If a majority of workers wants to form a union, they can select a union in one of two ways: If at least 30% of workers sign cards or a petition saying they want a union, the NLRB will conduct an election. If a majority of those who vote choose the union, the NLRB will certify the union as your representative for collective bargaining. An election is not the only way a union can become your representative. Your employer may voluntarily recognize a union based on evidence - typically signed union-authorization cards - that a majority of employees want it to represent them. Once a union has been certified or recognized, the employer is required to bargain over your terms and conditions of employment with your union representative. Special rules apply in the construction industry."
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/whats-law
That's in the US obviously.
> Once a union has been certified or recognized, the employer is required to bargain over your terms and conditions of employment with your union representative.
Oh. So once again bad laws cause the whole problem...
Oh. So once again bad laws cause the whole problem...
Those same "bad laws" are why you have a 5-day work week, your retirement plan, overtime (if you are hourly), safe working conditions, sick leave. The list goes on. If you think you'd like to go back before the time when unions didn't exist, let me direct you to the work of photographer Lewis Hine
Unions have done their job. They were needed when Pinkertons beat up people trying to open new stores in a company town, etc.
Ironically, flagging a post without bad content is just the sort of passive aggressive crap you have to put up with in a union.
Ironically, flagging a post without bad content is just the sort of passive aggressive crap you have to put up with in a union.
> They were needed when Pinkertons beat up people trying to open new stores in a company town, etc.
BTW, Amazon is still using Pinkertons to repress unionization attempts[0]. Things haven't changed that much after all.
- [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-agency-spie...
BTW, Amazon is still using Pinkertons to repress unionization attempts[0]. Things haven't changed that much after all.
- [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-pinkerton-agency-spie...
So? They used to break your legs. Now they just write stuff in a little booklet. Things have changed a lot.
The struggle is still the same.
Things have just gotten more politically correct, because now every employee could record your Pinkertons beating up people and share it with the whole world.
Don't think things have changed for any other reason that we forced them to do that.
Things have just gotten more politically correct, because now every employee could record your Pinkertons beating up people and share it with the whole world.
Don't think things have changed for any other reason that we forced them to do that.
> Don't think things have changed for any other reason that we forced them to do that.
We did not. Unless you are seventy. The changing laws of our country that make unions less useful have also gotten rid of private armies.
> The struggle is still the same.
Wow, no. Not at all. Not having people willing or able to hurt you kinda makes all the difference.
We did not. Unless you are seventy. The changing laws of our country that make unions less useful have also gotten rid of private armies.
> The struggle is still the same.
Wow, no. Not at all. Not having people willing or able to hurt you kinda makes all the difference.
Laws have done their job. They were needed when people were hunter-gatherers and needed to settle in cities and learn how to live peacefully now, etc.
We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.
> Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.
Most fields except: retail, food service, food delivery, warehouse work, customer service/support, auto repair, etc. Basically, half the people in the US if not more.
Most fields except: retail, food service, food delivery, warehouse work, customer service/support, auto repair, etc. Basically, half the people in the US if not more.
Most fields where the added value is equivalent to that of a (basically) robot and where the labor pool is more than "any able body" and thus the supply side is ridiculously unlimited.
Society rewards contribution it finds valuable. The amount of that reward is an extremely valuable signal for people to find ways to increase the quality or quantity of their contribution.
Society rewards contribution it finds valuable. The amount of that reward is an extremely valuable signal for people to find ways to increase the quality or quantity of their contribution.
> We have those thanks to the increase of productivity and competition between employees, not some unions hundreds of years ago. Maybe that was the reason initially but time has passed and today's situation favours the employee in most fields.
Possibly this is true for the kind of jobs that many HN readers tend to have. But many, many people have to slog it out in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs with minimal ability to bargain, and with almost all power on the side of the employer.
Possibly this is true for the kind of jobs that many HN readers tend to have. But many, many people have to slog it out in low-skilled or semi-skilled jobs with minimal ability to bargain, and with almost all power on the side of the employer.
Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both.
The term "low-skilled" was just invented by economists to justify low wages. I challenge you to spend a day doing something you consider low-skilled next to someone who has spent years in the job and at the end of the day compare your results. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-019-10001-y
> Society does not owe you a high salary for your low-skilled job with plenty of competition. We tried it - it was called Communism and the society went broke while the workers went hungry. It was worst for both.
I didn't say any of that. I was commenting on the assertion that "today's situation favours the employee in most fields". Which is demonstrably untrue for many people.
And I was also implicitly asserting that society should create the conditions for all workers to be treated decently, whether or not they receive a high salary.
I didn't say any of that. I was commenting on the assertion that "today's situation favours the employee in most fields". Which is demonstrably untrue for many people.
And I was also implicitly asserting that society should create the conditions for all workers to be treated decently, whether or not they receive a high salary.
Creating those decent conditions costs money, implying in effect a higher reward, even if not in salary form.
> competition between employees
Ah yes, the invocation of the Free Market Fairy https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
Ah yes, the invocation of the Free Market Fairy https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
today's situation favours the employee in most fields
I guess employees are choosing to let rich people take all the wealth they generate, then. How very generous of employees.
I guess what I'm basically saying is that the evidence indicates that what you just said is bullshit.
I guess employees are choosing to let rich people take all the wealth they generate, then. How very generous of employees.
I guess what I'm basically saying is that the evidence indicates that what you just said is bullshit.
I guess am not aware of any evidence of "rich people take all the wealth".
I know there are organisational structures in which all kinds of people cooperate to create wealth which is then distributed along to clearly agreed and understood rules to funders, investors and workers. They are called companies and all participants are adult, informed and consenting.
I know there are organisational structures in which all kinds of people cooperate to create wealth which is then distributed along to clearly agreed and understood rules to funders, investors and workers. They are called companies and all participants are adult, informed and consenting.
Look it up. Over the last fifty years in the US, productivity gains have gone to the rich. Employee wages have stagnated; the extra wealth they create goes to the rich.
This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. It's pretty widely known. Your assertion that employees have the power would suggest that employees are choosing to give these gains to the rich. That's just plain nonsense. All those people making minimum wage at Walmart; do they really look to you like they're in the driving seat?
Not aware of any evidence? You don't have to agree with Piketti to be aware of him; to be unaware of his work is to be wilfully ignorant. Best selling economist of the last decade? Enormously widely sold? Discussed in almost every economic forum? If you are genuinely unaware of any of the work on the subject (even those who vehemently disagree are still aware of it), then you are phenomenally ignorant in the field and should probably just not say anything.
This isn't exactly esoteric knowledge. It's pretty widely known. Your assertion that employees have the power would suggest that employees are choosing to give these gains to the rich. That's just plain nonsense. All those people making minimum wage at Walmart; do they really look to you like they're in the driving seat?
Not aware of any evidence? You don't have to agree with Piketti to be aware of him; to be unaware of his work is to be wilfully ignorant. Best selling economist of the last decade? Enormously widely sold? Discussed in almost every economic forum? If you are genuinely unaware of any of the work on the subject (even those who vehemently disagree are still aware of it), then you are phenomenally ignorant in the field and should probably just not say anything.
No, it didn't go to "the rich". The generated wealth went to funders, investors and employees with stocks. That made some of them rich.
But today anybody can own stock in companies so I guess everybody had the opportunity to enjoy those gains.
But today anybody can own stock in companies so I guess everybody had the opportunity to enjoy those gains.
I told you to look it up, and you didn't even bother. You're so convinced that your own infallible logic is all you need. You don't need reality. You don't need evidence. I guess this sort of thing is all just made up:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/pi...
Why do you even bother coming to the internet if you already know everything? I bet, I bet you think of yourself as hyper-rational. That you don't have biases, you're rational. That you can work things out from first principles and if reality disagrees, reality is wrong. I bet you have some fantasy about the "free market" and that by definition everything that happens in it is right and fair.
I do note that your argument has switched right round. Suddenly you realise you were wrong and that employees don't actually have the upper hand? Do you think people don't notice when you backtrack and change your argument mid-way through?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/pi...
Why do you even bother coming to the internet if you already know everything? I bet, I bet you think of yourself as hyper-rational. That you don't have biases, you're rational. That you can work things out from first principles and if reality disagrees, reality is wrong. I bet you have some fantasy about the "free market" and that by definition everything that happens in it is right and fair.
I do note that your argument has switched right round. Suddenly you realise you were wrong and that employees don't actually have the upper hand? Do you think people don't notice when you backtrack and change your argument mid-way through?
I don't need to look up that argument because it is well known, it shows up here pretty much on every discussion on this topic. It's repetitive, it's boring. And it is wrong. It doesn't say much and worse, it does not explain anything. It is so open to interpretation that is useless. Using it in an argument is intellectually lazy. But so is saying "rich people take all the wealth".
The free market and being rational are tools that are proven to work. They brought all the advances we enjoy every day in our life. I am eager to learn the other tools you propose instead.
Oh, and of course I am aware of Piketty. I also know he is wrong, laughably and demonstrably so. Not the first economist to be wrong, anyway. Turns out being well known doesn't make you right - kind of like Marx I guess.
The free market and being rational are tools that are proven to work. They brought all the advances we enjoy every day in our life. I am eager to learn the other tools you propose instead.
Oh, and of course I am aware of Piketty. I also know he is wrong, laughably and demonstrably so. Not the first economist to be wrong, anyway. Turns out being well known doesn't make you right - kind of like Marx I guess.
One person can join a union. They might, depending on the union, get extra insurance or legal representation or some other benefit not tied to negotiation with the employer. A one-person strike is generally considered a resignation, though. One core function of a union is as a collective bargaining group. It's difficult to collectively bargain when your collection is one person.
> Why would the company care if they do join a union?
The fundamental goal of a union is to force executives at a company to do things that benefit workers that they wouldn't otherwise do.
> Can't they simply refuse to negotiate with the union?
If the union has a small enough fraction of their employee base as members such that they company can afford the productivity loss of a strike, yes. Once a large enough fraction of workers are in the union, the threat of a strike puts enough pressure on executives that it is in their best interest to negotiate.
The fundamental goal of a union is to force executives at a company to do things that benefit workers that they wouldn't otherwise do.
> Can't they simply refuse to negotiate with the union?
If the union has a small enough fraction of their employee base as members such that they company can afford the productivity loss of a strike, yes. Once a large enough fraction of workers are in the union, the threat of a strike puts enough pressure on executives that it is in their best interest to negotiate.
Stuff like this always comes to mind when the media celebrates the richest people in the world. This often comes at the expense of low level employees who do dangerous and underpaid work so a few guys can become very rich. And the worse they treat these employees the more the rich guys get celebrated.
That’s why the slogan “run the government like a business” doesn’t work. It would mean to ignore the weakest in society (maybe lay them off?) for the benefit of a few at the top.
That’s why the slogan “run the government like a business” doesn’t work. It would mean to ignore the weakest in society (maybe lay them off?) for the benefit of a few at the top.
> It would mean to ignore the weakest in society (maybe lay them off?) for the benefit of a few at the top.
As though almost all the unprecedented levels of pandemic relief in the US haven’t gone to anything but people that need relief.
As though almost all the unprecedented levels of pandemic relief in the US haven’t gone to anything but people that need relief.
A lot of the early pandemic relief went to large corporations looking for cheap loans.
Fortunately, a lot of them were publicly shamed into giving it back.
Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars went to people making less than $75,000 a year. Seems like a good chunk of the relief went to those most likely to need it.
Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars went to people making less than $75,000 a year. Seems like a good chunk of the relief went to those most likely to need it.
The bills passed claim they're for "relief", but if you examine the contents much of the spending doesn't even occur this year.
> Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
> Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
> who do dangerous and underpaid work so a few guys can become very rich
If it's underpaid, why do it? If you do it, what makes it "under" paid?
By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right.
If it's underpaid, why do it? If you do it, what makes it "under" paid?
By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right.
Because the alternative is to starve?
You can take advantage of people when they’re in dire straits. That’s not indicative of some greater truth about the price of labor but a fact of exploitation.
You can take advantage of people when they’re in dire straits. That’s not indicative of some greater truth about the price of labor but a fact of exploitation.
So someone offers a job at a poor rate, and it's "exploitation".
Then what are you and me, who didn't even offer a rate? If they would've literally starved without the offer, it literally saved their life.
If a persons situation is not made worse by a job offer, then what's the problem? They would've still been worse off without it.
Then what are you and me, who didn't even offer a rate? If they would've literally starved without the offer, it literally saved their life.
If a persons situation is not made worse by a job offer, then what's the problem? They would've still been worse off without it.
Just because they would be better off with it doesn’t mean it’s not exploitative. The problem is the lack of non exploitative alternatives. You can argue a life of exploitation is better than starving to death but I’d say even that is up for debate.
No, the alternative is another job.
No. This is a blatant lie that keeps being repeated without thought.
The reason people work at amazon warehouses is because they don't have other choice. For many there simply are no other jobs that pay or treat you better.
The reason people work at amazon warehouses is because they don't have other choice. For many there simply are no other jobs that pay or treat you better.
Then the alternative was better education and more focus during one's formative years.
It's not my fault the kids skipping class, having fun and making jokes during teacher's lessons are now paid less than me.
Society offers plenty of opportunities but not to people who did noting to prepare themselves to take advantage of them.
It's not my fault the kids skipping class, having fun and making jokes during teacher's lessons are now paid less than me.
Society offers plenty of opportunities but not to people who did noting to prepare themselves to take advantage of them.
If it really is just a matter of the effort one puts into education, then answer this. If everyone studied with the same exact amount of effort, would we have a world without waitresses, warehouse workers, low wage jobs?
Obviously not. This society relies entirely on the fact that a good portion of the population can be blackmailed into doing the bad jobs, while the other small portion enjoys the fruits.
If nobody could be forced to take shitty jobs, how would most of the current industries exist?
Obviously not. This society relies entirely on the fact that a good portion of the population can be blackmailed into doing the bad jobs, while the other small portion enjoys the fruits.
If nobody could be forced to take shitty jobs, how would most of the current industries exist?
The fewer people interested in taking those "shitty jobs", the more they would get paid. Then the jobs would cease to be shitty.
This is what we should push for, not artificially and undeservedly reward those jobs more and thus trap ever more people into them.
My grandmother was illiterate. That condemned her to a hard life of struggle and hard work. But she stayed on my father's ass to study. My father stayed on my ass and I am staying on my children's. The lesson was so strong, three generations are benefiting.
This is what we should push for, not artificially and undeservedly reward those jobs more and thus trap ever more people into them.
My grandmother was illiterate. That condemned her to a hard life of struggle and hard work. But she stayed on my father's ass to study. My father stayed on my ass and I am staying on my children's. The lesson was so strong, three generations are benefiting.
I fully agree that education is fundamental for everyone to have, but not simply to allow everyone to have a good job. Just because it would make society so much better for everyone.
For this reason I'm also convinced that every single kid should have access to the same high quality education, independently from how much their family pushes them to it.
I'm also convinced that people should have the chance to get back on studies at a later point in life, because it's a delusion to think that every kid will understand the need for education in their teenage years.
For this reason I'm also convinced that every single kid should have access to the same high quality education, independently from how much their family pushes them to it.
I'm also convinced that people should have the chance to get back on studies at a later point in life, because it's a delusion to think that every kid will understand the need for education in their teenage years.
You are forgetting defaults and motivations in humans. By default, my kids would spend all day playing Minecraft. They do not have the motivation to do anything else.
I have to stay on their ass and push them to study. I am motivated to do that because I know how crappy low-level jobs are (I had one). Otherwise my default would be to let them do whatever they want. I love them!
A society which removes the motivation for its members to better themselves is a failed society.
I have to stay on their ass and push them to study. I am motivated to do that because I know how crappy low-level jobs are (I had one). Otherwise my default would be to let them do whatever they want. I love them!
A society which removes the motivation for its members to better themselves is a failed society.
You got some reasons. But the picture as a whole is different. Many can't make enough money to take care of their loved ones. Many are not lucky to have a grandma that pushed their dad to study. Also one doesn't need to be burned by fire to know it's dangerous.
Yes and as a society we should increase the number of such "grandmother events", not to remove the very reason mine existed in the first place. A society without competitiveness will fail.
And I don't know a better way to teach most people that fire is dangerous than a controlled burn...
And I don't know a better way to teach most people that fire is dangerous than a controlled burn...
> would we have a world without waitresses, warehouse workers, low wage jobs?
The latter is impossible to answer since "low wage" is relative, much like if everyone had millions of $ for every $ they owned, the currency would simply devalue.
That said, in a nation full of skilled, competent workers, the nation would be more productive overall (more "fruits" to go around), and more competitive abroad - so it's not a zero-sum game in that sense.
> waitresses, warehouse workers
I couldn't care less if waitressing disappeared, I prefer self-serve places; what value is lost?
If no-one wanted to be paid low wages to work in warehouses, either a) warehouse worker wages would go up, or b) an alternative solution would be found, or c) the business is no longer viable and collapses.
> can be blackmailed into doing the bad jobs
and even the people with good jobs probably wouldn't work if they weren't paid. In that sense are they blackmailed too?
> If nobody could be forced to take shitty jobs, how would most of the current industries exist?
By paying more for those jobs, or replacing them. Alternatively, by those industries not existing.
Do you think most industry cannot exist but for the subsidy of paying low wage
Can you give me an example of a healthy industry were the most critical workers are low paid?
The latter is impossible to answer since "low wage" is relative, much like if everyone had millions of $ for every $ they owned, the currency would simply devalue.
That said, in a nation full of skilled, competent workers, the nation would be more productive overall (more "fruits" to go around), and more competitive abroad - so it's not a zero-sum game in that sense.
> waitresses, warehouse workers
I couldn't care less if waitressing disappeared, I prefer self-serve places; what value is lost?
If no-one wanted to be paid low wages to work in warehouses, either a) warehouse worker wages would go up, or b) an alternative solution would be found, or c) the business is no longer viable and collapses.
> can be blackmailed into doing the bad jobs
and even the people with good jobs probably wouldn't work if they weren't paid. In that sense are they blackmailed too?
> If nobody could be forced to take shitty jobs, how would most of the current industries exist?
By paying more for those jobs, or replacing them. Alternatively, by those industries not existing.
Do you think most industry cannot exist but for the subsidy of paying low wage
Can you give me an example of a healthy industry were the most critical workers are low paid?
It's not my fault the kids skipping class, having fun and making jokes during teacher's lessons are now paid less than me.
If that's how you think people become poor and desperate, I can only surmise that you've never had anything bad happen to you ever.
Never got sick. Never had a family member hurt. Never been the victim of crime. Never fallen on a wet floor. Never had a house fire. Never had your car break down. You always had plenty of food, plenty of money, plenty of infrastructure near you. Never had to worry about the condition of your home, or whether you'd even have a home tomorrow. Someone else paid for your education, your transportation, your entire life when you were growing up.
Consider yourself blessed. And please never run for office.
If that's how you think people become poor and desperate, I can only surmise that you've never had anything bad happen to you ever.
Never got sick. Never had a family member hurt. Never been the victim of crime. Never fallen on a wet floor. Never had a house fire. Never had your car break down. You always had plenty of food, plenty of money, plenty of infrastructure near you. Never had to worry about the condition of your home, or whether you'd even have a home tomorrow. Someone else paid for your education, your transportation, your entire life when you were growing up.
Consider yourself blessed. And please never run for office.
Yes, life has hardships, but please do not tell me they are the ones controlling its course and your choices don't matter.
For hardships you can buy insurance with money or time (family, friends, various organisations) but your choices are entirely your responsibility and there is no way to insure yourself against making the wrong ones.
For hardships you can buy insurance with money or time (family, friends, various organisations) but your choices are entirely your responsibility and there is no way to insure yourself against making the wrong ones.
[deleted]
Programmers say things like "By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right." and then wonder why everyone thinks programmers are emotionally cold.
Yes, by pure math and market economics, I guess you might be right. But by hearth, I'm sure even you realize that it's not that black and white in reality.
Yes, by pure math and market economics, I guess you might be right. But by hearth, I'm sure even you realize that it's not that black and white in reality.
If it's not that black and white, why not explain how rather than invoking negative programmer stereotypes?
The answer is exactly what you (likely) suspect:
* Most labour isn't high value
* Western workers have an expectation of a high standard of living that grew out of post-War economic expansion
* Employer/Employee relations are asymmetric: the former has greater market power to influence pricing than the latter
* Fairness in human relations is an independent notion from the economic clearing price, cf. The Dictator Game
* The most effective techniques at causing change involve at least some appeals to emotion or outrage
Put this together and you'll get this thread.
* Most labour isn't high value
* Western workers have an expectation of a high standard of living that grew out of post-War economic expansion
* Employer/Employee relations are asymmetric: the former has greater market power to influence pricing than the latter
* Fairness in human relations is an independent notion from the economic clearing price, cf. The Dictator Game
* The most effective techniques at causing change involve at least some appeals to emotion or outrage
Put this together and you'll get this thread.
I follow the first 3 points, but not the latter 2.
1) employee / employer relations are not "human relations"; Actual human relationships involve transactions that are more than just monetary. A corporation offering jobs in a location is not otherwise involved in the economics of that place.
2) "The most effective techniques at causing change involve at least some appeals to emotion or outrage"
What techniques/changes? political?
Plenty techniques involving emotion or outrage are among the least effective too.
1) employee / employer relations are not "human relations"; Actual human relationships involve transactions that are more than just monetary. A corporation offering jobs in a location is not otherwise involved in the economics of that place.
2) "The most effective techniques at causing change involve at least some appeals to emotion or outrage"
What techniques/changes? political?
Plenty techniques involving emotion or outrage are among the least effective too.
Just read the Wikipedia page for the dictator game. It'll fast-forward your understanding. I think this is the extent to which I am willing to tutor. But if you'd like more, I'll do it at $180/hr, email in profile. Should be 10 mins if you don't have further questions, 30 mins if you do.
Not even Wikipedia asserts that the experiment proves anything. And even if it did, the burden is on you to prove that "fairness in human relations" is relevant to this thread.
That's exactly why I said:
But since you responded with smug condescension, it seems like your more interested in implying that I'm stupid (don't understand) and you're clever (I can tutor) than responding in good faith.
That's exactly why I said:
employee / employer relations are not "human relations"
But since you responded with smug condescension, it seems like your more interested in implying that I'm stupid (don't understand) and you're clever (I can tutor) than responding in good faith.
It isn't condescension. You're just living under the misapprehension that I am trying to convince you. You're welcome to believe what you want. If you don't think it's worth the money, it's okay if you don't want to pay.
This is the sort of thinking that erodes the ground underneath society.
Because you are desperate and need to pay rent and eat. This is how exploitation worked. If everyone was economically free enough, Amazon managers would be laughed all the way to the door.
This naively assumes the person has a choice of other opportunities and that the those other jobs aren't also underpaid.
I don't like that thinking. It ignores radical power imbalances.
If I, or a group I'm a part of, controls the majority of the resources, we get to decide allocation of those resources without regard to any other consideration than what we would part with.
So if you go to an area with high unemployment where the businesses only offer at most $5/hr, you can also offer $5/hr even for jobs critical to your business.
If I, or a group I'm a part of, controls the majority of the resources, we get to decide allocation of those resources without regard to any other consideration than what we would part with.
So if you go to an area with high unemployment where the businesses only offer at most $5/hr, you can also offer $5/hr even for jobs critical to your business.
It's got much more to do with supply and demand than power.
Table salt and unskilled labor are both cheap primarily because there's an over-supply relative to demand.
Cleaners (as an example) provide huge value-add, but it's not unique value-add because there's millions of people that are capable of providing that service, and therefore the market rate is low. There's no centralized power that's dictating that cleaners should earn a low wage.
Some reasons for over-supply of unskilled labor in rich countries are globalization (U.S. workers now need to compete with Chinese factory workers for manufacturing) and technology/automation.
This isn't to understate the incredible difficulty of being poor, but let's not misdiagnose what the real reasons are for low wages.
Table salt and unskilled labor are both cheap primarily because there's an over-supply relative to demand.
Cleaners (as an example) provide huge value-add, but it's not unique value-add because there's millions of people that are capable of providing that service, and therefore the market rate is low. There's no centralized power that's dictating that cleaners should earn a low wage.
Some reasons for over-supply of unskilled labor in rich countries are globalization (U.S. workers now need to compete with Chinese factory workers for manufacturing) and technology/automation.
This isn't to understate the incredible difficulty of being poor, but let's not misdiagnose what the real reasons are for low wages.
What kind of power balance, specifically.
If you offer $5/hr where max rate is $5/hr the area isn't any worse off.
If you offer $5/hr where max rate is $5/hr the area isn't any worse off.
If $5/hr is an exploitative rate, then it's exploitation regardless of whether the the area is worse off or not
If the rate $5/hr is inherently exploitative, then how can a person not capable of producing more than $5/hr of value ever be employed?
No one is saying it's inherently exploitative. Or at the very least, I'm not. It can be exploitative because if the other jobs in the area are inherently worth $X/hr (because they provide about that value to the company), then you can get away with paying $X/hr in that area even if the job is inherently worth significantly more (because it provides more value to the company).
"because it provides more value to the company"
If you buy bread for $2, you do so because it has subject value if $2.5. If the bread cost $2.51, you wouldn't buy it.
If you hire someone for $13/hour, you do so because you're willing to pay $11/hour and you've gotten $2/hour of benefit on top.
There's zero transactions anywhere where the value to the company (or individual) isn't higher than what they're paying for it.
Despite some weird issues with your post, the problem lies in that companies get to basically engage in a sort of labor arbitrage.
They're paying someone $5/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value. The worker should be entitled to at the very least some of that extra value in the form of wages. Actually, all of it, but you know, get what you can.
That's the issue. There's $5/hr of value being essentially taken by the employer.
And before you come with any "but the business needs to profit", that's already accounted for. We're talking about what the worker provides to the company. The company can impart additional value as well. And that is what the company should be profiting. So if the company's infrastructure and economies of scale allow it to effectively sell the employee's effort at $15/hr, it does get to pocket that $5/hr. That's fair.
But like I said, due to the radical power imbalance, employers often get to engage in labor arbitrage. In which they underpay labor because employees often have no recourse. That doesn't make the labor worth less.
They're paying someone $5/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value. The worker should be entitled to at the very least some of that extra value in the form of wages. Actually, all of it, but you know, get what you can.
That's the issue. There's $5/hr of value being essentially taken by the employer.
And before you come with any "but the business needs to profit", that's already accounted for. We're talking about what the worker provides to the company. The company can impart additional value as well. And that is what the company should be profiting. So if the company's infrastructure and economies of scale allow it to effectively sell the employee's effort at $15/hr, it does get to pocket that $5/hr. That's fair.
But like I said, due to the radical power imbalance, employers often get to engage in labor arbitrage. In which they underpay labor because employees often have no recourse. That doesn't make the labor worth less.
If the employee's effort contributes (can be sold for) $15/hour, then that is the value of the employee to the company.
The company is therefore happy to pay between $0/hour and $14.99/hour to the employee, depending on the supply of relevant labor.
Where did the $10/hour number come from?
The company is therefore happy to pay between $0/hour and $14.99/hour to the employee, depending on the supply of relevant labor.
Where did the $10/hour number come from?
You do realize I made up all of the numbers, right? They're hypothetical numbers to illustrate a point. Because it is really difficult to pinpoint the actual value of labor and whatnot. And I'm not looking to discuss whether any particular job is worth any particular value. So I use a fictional, hypothetical world where I already know the values (because I made them up), to highlight a core point.
Which is why a lot of people want to steer away from the conversation of what labor is worth. Because we may have to admit that companies are short-changing their workers (no matter where they are working).
> $15/hour, then that is the value of the employee to the company.
That's an assertion that I do not grant you. And by definition of the fictional world I created, would not be true. The value they provide is $10/hr.
But let's assume that it is $15/hr for a second. Then, if the company provides no value whatsoever, then why should they get anything?
Why can't the worker just go and sell to whoever the company was selling to and make the money directly?
That reason is the value the company provides. And it is worth something. And I'm completely willing to acknowledge that. Just because something can be sold for $X doesn't mean any single part of the chain to produce that item provided all of the value.
Which is why a lot of people want to steer away from the conversation of what labor is worth. Because we may have to admit that companies are short-changing their workers (no matter where they are working).
> $15/hour, then that is the value of the employee to the company.
That's an assertion that I do not grant you. And by definition of the fictional world I created, would not be true. The value they provide is $10/hr.
But let's assume that it is $15/hr for a second. Then, if the company provides no value whatsoever, then why should they get anything?
Why can't the worker just go and sell to whoever the company was selling to and make the money directly?
That reason is the value the company provides. And it is worth something. And I'm completely willing to acknowledge that. Just because something can be sold for $X doesn't mean any single part of the chain to produce that item provided all of the value.
> You do realize I made up all of the numbers, right?
Yes, I realize that.
I figured out the misunderstanding. Your $10/hour figure is net value after wages ($15/hour - $5/hour), whereas I was assuming you meant gross value provided by the employee to the employer. So, at least we're on the same page regarding that now.
> That reason is the value the company provides.
Yeah, exactly. Labor is one of the factors of production. The company puts all the factors together in a way that individuals cannot (due to scale or whatever), and pays labor a rent based on market prices. It also pays land or capital (other factors of production) rents too, based on market prices in the property and corporate bond markets.
Where we depart is on the normative judgement that labor should be paid more of that surplus value creation than what it's currently getting. The fact is that they currently are capturing some of that value creation, and that amount is determined by supply and demand in the labor market. The reason they don't get more is there's a large over-supply of fungible unskilled labor which just isn't that useful. It's like if there's a glut of capital or an over-supply of land (e.g. in a rural area); the rents go down accordingly because the inputs just aren't scarce. To introduce an intentional mispricing in the labor market, which would need to be done by force, will lead to a misallocation of resources. If inequality is a concern, there are less economically damaging policies to consider.
Where we especially depart is on the framing of this as exploitation. This mindset only leads to more human suffering. If you offer someone a job for $X+1/hour when their alternative is $X/hour, you've made their life better off, and we want to incentivize this as much as possible instead of condemning it because $X+1/hour is "too small". It is after-all what pulled China out of poverty, and if we instead had pushed this exploitation narrative, we might not have seen this humanitarian miracle play out.
Yes, I realize that.
I figured out the misunderstanding. Your $10/hour figure is net value after wages ($15/hour - $5/hour), whereas I was assuming you meant gross value provided by the employee to the employer. So, at least we're on the same page regarding that now.
> That reason is the value the company provides.
Yeah, exactly. Labor is one of the factors of production. The company puts all the factors together in a way that individuals cannot (due to scale or whatever), and pays labor a rent based on market prices. It also pays land or capital (other factors of production) rents too, based on market prices in the property and corporate bond markets.
Where we depart is on the normative judgement that labor should be paid more of that surplus value creation than what it's currently getting. The fact is that they currently are capturing some of that value creation, and that amount is determined by supply and demand in the labor market. The reason they don't get more is there's a large over-supply of fungible unskilled labor which just isn't that useful. It's like if there's a glut of capital or an over-supply of land (e.g. in a rural area); the rents go down accordingly because the inputs just aren't scarce. To introduce an intentional mispricing in the labor market, which would need to be done by force, will lead to a misallocation of resources. If inequality is a concern, there are less economically damaging policies to consider.
Where we especially depart is on the framing of this as exploitation. This mindset only leads to more human suffering. If you offer someone a job for $X+1/hour when their alternative is $X/hour, you've made their life better off, and we want to incentivize this as much as possible instead of condemning it because $X+1/hour is "too small". It is after-all what pulled China out of poverty, and if we instead had pushed this exploitation narrative, we might not have seen this humanitarian miracle play out.
What you are arguing is that employers should never benefit from employee labour i.e. all profits must be passed on to the employee.
If I pay someone $5/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value, the benefit to the employer is $5/hr.
If I pay someone $10/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value, there is no benefit to the employer.
Why would anyone care to employ anyone for no benefit, beyond charity?
Furthermore, "$X/hr of value" is a little suspect - the $ value of something is only determined after a product or service is sold; and there may be many contributing factors to that sale. Determining what % a given action contributes towards a sale is subjective, and usually resolved in the following manner: "How much would this cost me if I bought from someone else" i.e. determined by the market, the exact thing which would be destroyed by your proposal.
If a product is made by several workers on a production line (and assisted by designers, machine maintainers, sales & marketing etc etc) how do you determine the $ value of each contribution, beyond auction-style competition?
On that point: what is the value of drinking water? If you never drank water you would die, so it is arguably worth a lot - so why pay so little? a lifetime of water keeping you alive is worth thousands of dollars, so why ever pay less that $3 a litre?
Of course, I understand the true aim here: If minimum living wage is $LMW pa then no job should pay less than that.
What complicates this is;
1) people can have multiple jobs to meet $LMW, so maybe an hourly rate should be the standard i.e. if you pay 0.5 $LMV then you should only take half the usual working hours (so people can get a second job) and the job should not be so physically or mentally draining that it would disallow this either.
2) jobs based on commission become tricky as profit is not guaranteed. I suppose you could just pay $LMW and grant commission once you're over some quota. That said, invalidating some of these schemes may be beneficial. Maybe self-funded start-ups should be required to pay themselves a token wage from savings?
3) $LMW will differ by area, QOL is hard to determine and this will require a lot of influence in the market by government. That said, a flat national rate might equalise this; giving benefit to poorer areas, and pushing people out of the areas of concentrated wealth. At the same time, this has negative effects; binding people to poorer areas and pushing them out of concentrations of wealth..
This might not address your concern though, if $LMW is $5/hr, your worker bringing $10/hr of value still won't be paid more.
Final point: lower wages, can bootstrap businesses inter high-paying ones, and careers into higher paying ones (e.g. see low/unpaid internships). Even larger established businesses may be more likely to take a gamble on something if they can initially pay lower wages until the project is profitable. All of this has downside too. It's all a question of shuffling debt - arguably a business owner with no obligation to pay higher wages at a later stage should therefore shoulder all debt from unprofitable stages, and should take on a loan rather than pay lower wages; At the same time, smaller business owners might not have the credit for that; Maybe a better option would be some kind of scheme where lower-paid employees are compensated in company bonds?
If I pay someone $5/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value, the benefit to the employer is $5/hr.
If I pay someone $10/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value, there is no benefit to the employer.
Why would anyone care to employ anyone for no benefit, beyond charity?
Furthermore, "$X/hr of value" is a little suspect - the $ value of something is only determined after a product or service is sold; and there may be many contributing factors to that sale. Determining what % a given action contributes towards a sale is subjective, and usually resolved in the following manner: "How much would this cost me if I bought from someone else" i.e. determined by the market, the exact thing which would be destroyed by your proposal.
If a product is made by several workers on a production line (and assisted by designers, machine maintainers, sales & marketing etc etc) how do you determine the $ value of each contribution, beyond auction-style competition?
On that point: what is the value of drinking water? If you never drank water you would die, so it is arguably worth a lot - so why pay so little? a lifetime of water keeping you alive is worth thousands of dollars, so why ever pay less that $3 a litre?
Of course, I understand the true aim here: If minimum living wage is $LMW pa then no job should pay less than that.
What complicates this is;
1) people can have multiple jobs to meet $LMW, so maybe an hourly rate should be the standard i.e. if you pay 0.5 $LMV then you should only take half the usual working hours (so people can get a second job) and the job should not be so physically or mentally draining that it would disallow this either.
2) jobs based on commission become tricky as profit is not guaranteed. I suppose you could just pay $LMW and grant commission once you're over some quota. That said, invalidating some of these schemes may be beneficial. Maybe self-funded start-ups should be required to pay themselves a token wage from savings?
3) $LMW will differ by area, QOL is hard to determine and this will require a lot of influence in the market by government. That said, a flat national rate might equalise this; giving benefit to poorer areas, and pushing people out of the areas of concentrated wealth. At the same time, this has negative effects; binding people to poorer areas and pushing them out of concentrations of wealth..
This might not address your concern though, if $LMW is $5/hr, your worker bringing $10/hr of value still won't be paid more.
Final point: lower wages, can bootstrap businesses inter high-paying ones, and careers into higher paying ones (e.g. see low/unpaid internships). Even larger established businesses may be more likely to take a gamble on something if they can initially pay lower wages until the project is profitable. All of this has downside too. It's all a question of shuffling debt - arguably a business owner with no obligation to pay higher wages at a later stage should therefore shoulder all debt from unprofitable stages, and should take on a loan rather than pay lower wages; At the same time, smaller business owners might not have the credit for that; Maybe a better option would be some kind of scheme where lower-paid employees are compensated in company bonds?
No I'm not.
The employer is adding $5/hr of value to the end product. That is their profit.
You cannot pay someone $5/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value. You provided them with $5/hr.
You can pay someone $5/hr to provide you with $10/hr of value. In which case, you are undervaluing their work by $5/hr.
The employer is adding $5/hr of value to the end product. That is their profit.
You cannot pay someone $5/hr to provide them with $10/hr of value. You provided them with $5/hr.
You can pay someone $5/hr to provide you with $10/hr of value. In which case, you are undervaluing their work by $5/hr.
> You can pay someone $5/hr to provide you with $10/hr of value
What is "$10/hr of value" as distinct for what you paid for it? Is it based on how much you sold the end-product for?
If that's the case, you paid $X/hr to earn an extra $X/hr - in other words no extra profit, is that not correct?
What is "$10/hr of value" as distinct for what you paid for it? Is it based on how much you sold the end-product for?
If that's the case, you paid $X/hr to earn an extra $X/hr - in other words no extra profit, is that not correct?
This thinking leads to more poverty and less social mobility.
Factory workers in China get paid less than $5/hour, yet this so-called "exploitation" directly led to a large reduction in poverty[1]. If everyone had accepted your framing and refused to do manufacturing business with China on that basis, the consequence of that would be more poverty and human suffering.
If a person is being paid $4/hour and you come in and offer a $5/hour job, you are making their situation better and you are improving their life.
[1]https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/poverty-rate
Factory workers in China get paid less than $5/hour, yet this so-called "exploitation" directly led to a large reduction in poverty[1]. If everyone had accepted your framing and refused to do manufacturing business with China on that basis, the consequence of that would be more poverty and human suffering.
If a person is being paid $4/hour and you come in and offer a $5/hour job, you are making their situation better and you are improving their life.
[1]https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/poverty-rate
My point is that an hourly rate can be exploitative even if it is the highest in the area.
I know, and my point is that's wrong.
A wage that just lifted someone out of poverty isn't exploitative by definition, unless we've mangled the definition of exploitation beyond recognition and we're trying to incentivize behavior with our language that literally creates more poverty.
A wage that just lifted someone out of poverty isn't exploitative by definition, unless we've mangled the definition of exploitation beyond recognition and we're trying to incentivize behavior with our language that literally creates more poverty.
By taking the job, you confirm the wage is right.
I see you've never been poor. I have. Sometimes you take any job, no matter the wage, just to keep the wolves at bay and food on the table.
I see you've never been poor. I have. Sometimes you take any job, no matter the wage, just to keep the wolves at bay and food on the table.
Mr. Hough (pronounced Huff) was in a hospital having knee surgery when Amazon called and said he had used up his medical leave.
This. WTF. I hear this sort of thing and it's always a surprise, no matter how many times I hear it. Like that bullshit about being allocated a certain number of sick days. Like they're basically holiday days, but you can only use them when you're sick. I guess this then means that if you're sick, you're more likely to lose your job and as a bonus in the fucked up nightmare I'm describing, lose your employer-provided access to healthcare. It's like someone set out to deliberately create a system where minor misfortunes amplify to life-ruining catastrophe; instead of a system that catches people, a system that does just the opposite.
This. WTF. I hear this sort of thing and it's always a surprise, no matter how many times I hear it. Like that bullshit about being allocated a certain number of sick days. Like they're basically holiday days, but you can only use them when you're sick. I guess this then means that if you're sick, you're more likely to lose your job and as a bonus in the fucked up nightmare I'm describing, lose your employer-provided access to healthcare. It's like someone set out to deliberately create a system where minor misfortunes amplify to life-ruining catastrophe; instead of a system that catches people, a system that does just the opposite.
From the article, the link to the image/"Notice":
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/03/business/00amazon...
I don't know who signed it (I can read the name "Belinda").. whoever signed it though must have felt a great amount of shame for representing that company.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/03/business/00amazon...
I don't know who signed it (I can read the name "Belinda").. whoever signed it though must have felt a great amount of shame for representing that company.
[deleted]
Missing “How” from title
Not to excuse Amazon or anything, but absolutely every company in America does this. Most of them don't bother with subterfuge though and just go with threats or firings. And one of our main political parties is vehemently anti-union and keeps winning elections.
I know a few small business owners that have said if their staff unionized they would just close the business.
These aren't bad bosses or people who don't know how to run a business. They just know if their staff unionized and the rest of their industry didn't, they wouldn't be able to compete on price or keep the necessary number of staff.
I think it's easier to pick on Amazon or bezos than it is to deal with the political forces that you've mentioned, or come to terms with needing to unionizing a whole industry before it would stop hurting small businesses.
These aren't bad bosses or people who don't know how to run a business. They just know if their staff unionized and the rest of their industry didn't, they wouldn't be able to compete on price or keep the necessary number of staff.
I think it's easier to pick on Amazon or bezos than it is to deal with the political forces that you've mentioned, or come to terms with needing to unionizing a whole industry before it would stop hurting small businesses.
It's in the union's interest to keep the company alive too.
But then what is its purpose?
Management has no reason to oppose changes that cost them nothing with or without a union. In an industry with thin margins, anything that does cost them money puts them out of business. Meanwhile a union that can't achieve meaningful concessions is collecting dues for no benefit, requiring the company to pay more to retain talent and thereby putting them out of business just by existing.
Management has no reason to oppose changes that cost them nothing with or without a union. In an industry with thin margins, anything that does cost them money puts them out of business. Meanwhile a union that can't achieve meaningful concessions is collecting dues for no benefit, requiring the company to pay more to retain talent and thereby putting them out of business just by existing.
This is a very simplified way of thinking about it. Costco manages to be profitable while paying more than the average to retail workers in an industry with thin margins. Whole Foods managed this too until it was acquired.
It's funny how the US is often presented hyper innovative, and economically dynamic, while at the same time it is claimed that basic issues like universal health care and workers rights - problems that are solved in many other developed countries - are intractable in the US because of "thin margins" or "the deficit".
It's funny how the US is often presented hyper innovative, and economically dynamic, while at the same time it is claimed that basic issues like universal health care and workers rights - problems that are solved in many other developed countries - are intractable in the US because of "thin margins" or "the deficit".
Costco operates in the same market conditions Walmart. It's just that their revenue to employee over twice as high, so they can sustainably pay a small number of high-quality workers more rather than a large number of lower-quality workers.
Pro-labor operates under the false assumption that employing a small number of well-paid workers is better for society than employing a large number of lower paid workers. Let's say Walmart could afford to pay a "living wage" by replacing their shelves with pallets, laying off most of their shelvers, and redistributing their wages to the other employees. Would that really be any better?
Pro-labor operates under the false assumption that employing a small number of well-paid workers is better for society than employing a large number of lower paid workers. Let's say Walmart could afford to pay a "living wage" by replacing their shelves with pallets, laying off most of their shelvers, and redistributing their wages to the other employees. Would that really be any better?
In my experience, the union's interest is more in keeping the union alive.
Which business and union are you talking about specifically?
As unions usually live on either/and employee dues and government grants, making sure both the company and the industry overall is doing well is in their best interest, as otherwise the union will certainly not be alive.
So would be useful to see an example of a union NOT wanting good for the company/industry as that would be an outlier compared the the rest of them.
As unions usually live on either/and employee dues and government grants, making sure both the company and the industry overall is doing well is in their best interest, as otherwise the union will certainly not be alive.
So would be useful to see an example of a union NOT wanting good for the company/industry as that would be an outlier compared the the rest of them.
That's just an empty threat similar to the threats to do the same if the minimum wage is increased. Every time it happens, businesses adjust.
> people who don't know how to run a business
I submit that if business can't exist without a government subsidy that allows them to pay their employees less than a living wage, then the people running the business do not, in fact, know how to run it.
I submit that if business can't exist without a government subsidy that allows them to pay their employees less than a living wage, then the people running the business do not, in fact, know how to run it.
Do you run a business? I do. Industry-wide races to the bottom that have existed for decades before I was even born have put margins so razor-thin that paying more than slightly higher than the usual industry thresholds is untenable for smaller businesses. You raise your price too much to compensate, and your business dries up. Regulations designed to curtail abuses by large corporations can be devastating for small businesses.
I don't like this fact, and this obviously isn't going to be true for every industry, but these twee 'truisms' don't accurately represent reality.
I don't like this fact, and this obviously isn't going to be true for every industry, but these twee 'truisms' don't accurately represent reality.
I agree, but I know first hand that the businesses I'm referring to pay a minimum salary of $45K and the vast majority of employees are above $55K. These businesses are IT service providers, providing their services to other small or medium businesses. The clients in this industry are very price conscious and wouldn't care that the staff unionized at one company, they wouldn't be able to justify a significant price increase for the same services / value.
That's $22.50/hr before taxes. It's barely a living wage in for a single adult with no kids some places.
Obviously not "absolutely every company in America does this", this sounds like an attempt to normalize it.
Yeah, it may be par for the course for your average American company, but it's exceptional for tech companies - then again, most tech companies don't have as many high-supply-low-demand jobs as Amazon (or they "outsource" them, like Uber).
> but absolutely every company in America does this
This is false.
I own a company, in America, and I'm trying to convince my employees to start a union. It hasn't happened yet, but I'll convince them one day
This is false.
I own a company, in America, and I'm trying to convince my employees to start a union. It hasn't happened yet, but I'll convince them one day
Good. Unions ultimately get entangled with regulators and its harmful for everyone. Look no further than public school teachers, getting paid, refuse to work. Meanwhile private school teachers have been working.. if you hate working at Amazon, quit.
Minimally, public sector unions should be discussed separately from private sector unions. FDR warned against the former:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolut...
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolut...
unions are corrupt, wasteful, and the only organization that is structurally aligned with workers despite all those drawbacks. Your boss is not your friend, and you are only one person. you lose.
> Unions ultimately get entangled with regulators
Oh? Show me one major regulatory body in the US that has as many union leaders running it as it does leaders from the industries it regulates.
Oh? Show me one major regulatory body in the US that has as many union leaders running it as it does leaders from the industries it regulates.
[deleted]
Your experience with unions seems very limited, please read about unions in countries where the system isn't broken.
The challenge I have with looking at unions in countries that 'do it right', so to speak, is that the union Amazon employees are looking to make will end up being an American-style union.
It's telling that when shown overwhelmingly that private-sector unions in America are hopelessly broken and corrupt that the only solution the pro-union folks have for the problem is "more unionization".
I've been in three different unions and would never "join" one again [my participation was mandatory for the job in each case] and would change careers if my field unionized significantly.
I remember a local news story once where a baker at a local grocery store was caught on film urinating in the cake batter for the store's cakes. His termination was fought, successfully, by the union for violating rules they'd negotiated around filming. That's not a win for anyone.
I've been in three different unions and would never "join" one again [my participation was mandatory for the job in each case] and would change careers if my field unionized significantly.
I remember a local news story once where a baker at a local grocery store was caught on film urinating in the cake batter for the store's cakes. His termination was fought, successfully, by the union for violating rules they'd negotiated around filming. That's not a win for anyone.
There are so many horror stories about union employees who deserve to be fired but are defended vigorously by the union itself. Why does this happen? What do these unions have to gain by defending the actions of their worst members?
It's like lawyers defending horrible people. They are entitled to it. The issue that I have with it is I've seen plenty of normal terminations where the unions should have done something and didn't.
Of the three unions that I have been in, largely they didn't do shit for me other than take my money. The union didn't help me when I was being sexually harassed by my manager nor did the union help me when my time clock was being manipulated to short me pay.
Also, I've worked some of the shittiest minimum wage jobs America has to offer and I think it's a crock of shit that people _need_ collective bargaining to get a fair deal. It's entirely possible to negotiate a fair employment situation as long as we teach people about boundaries, the law and how to work effectively.
Since becoming a "grown up", I've been able to negotiate my salary and terms of employment quite well. And more importantly, much better than anyone collectively bargaining would be able to for me.
Of the three unions that I have been in, largely they didn't do shit for me other than take my money. The union didn't help me when I was being sexually harassed by my manager nor did the union help me when my time clock was being manipulated to short me pay.
Also, I've worked some of the shittiest minimum wage jobs America has to offer and I think it's a crock of shit that people _need_ collective bargaining to get a fair deal. It's entirely possible to negotiate a fair employment situation as long as we teach people about boundaries, the law and how to work effectively.
Since becoming a "grown up", I've been able to negotiate my salary and terms of employment quite well. And more importantly, much better than anyone collectively bargaining would be able to for me.
Unfortunately we're discussing unions forming in a country where there are a lot of issues with dysfunctional unions, and some less than stellar, high-profile history. It will be impossible to dismiss that when having the discussion when the context is within the United States.
Which is really sad, given that it was one of the countries that it was on their genesis.
For example?
Most stuff you can buy on Amazon these days is the same garbage that is sold on Wish but you pay ~25-50% more for it to come within a couple of days. Not shopping at either has definitely raised the average life span and quality of goods in my household.
Now I only wish I could find a way to move all our infrastructure off AWS...