[HN Gopher] Amazon's wage increase to $15 an hour also upped pay...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon's wage increase to $15 an hour also upped pay for non-Amazon
workers
Author : rustoo
Score : 169 points
Date : 2021-06-05 10:41 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aboutamazon.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aboutamazon.com)
| synaesthesisx wrote:
| $15/hour is not a living wage in the US. That is absolutely
| ridiculous. Amazon should double it for their warehouse workers
| (they certainly can afford to!).
| hnarn wrote:
| Surely that depends on where in the US you live. It's about
| $2,400 a month which is by no means categorically impossible to
| live on in any part of the US.
| miguelazo wrote:
| Of course, no mention that Bernie Sanders had to drag Amazon
| kicking and screaming to raise their minimum wage to $15. Glad
| they finally see the benefits...
| missedthecue wrote:
| Kicking and screaming? Do you have any evidence of this? Amazon
| led the pack. Target, Chipotle, and others have followed.
| nautilus12 wrote:
| Amazons warehouse wage no longer holding back the market for non
| Amazon workers. FTFY
| repsilat wrote:
| Is this "Baumol's Cost Disease"? Productivity goes up at Amazon,
| wages go up at Amazon, wages go up elsewhere so they can attract
| workers, and prices for consumers go up.
|
| Good marketing, but a bad outcome once you've read Bastiat --
| jobs and wages are a _cost_.
| pydry wrote:
| It's interesting that Baumol uses "disease" to describe a
| rising tide lifting all boats.
|
| Is that correct or did I misinterpret the phenomena he was
| trying to describe?
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Disease is not a very good description, but basically what
| happens is that somebody does some work, say child care,
| which does not scale. They are paid x dollars for this
| service.
|
| Then the job market changes and they can go and get a better
| job somewhere else, so you now have to pay them x+y dollars
| for child care. Child care has not become more productive,
| the cost of living has not changed, but your child care is
| now more expensive.
|
| You could call that a rising boat that lifts all boats, but
| if you need child care it doesn't.
| repsilat wrote:
| I think that "rising tide" usually refers to everyone getting
| more food and bigger televisions, and it even being good for
| farmers and factory workers.
|
| In this case, though, haircuts get comparatively _more_
| expensive. Good for the hairdresser, and fine if your wages
| go up to match. Characterising it as a "rising tide" _might_
| be fair (both in terms of cost and in terms of standard of
| living), but it 's not the "usual" tide of pro-market
| rhetoric.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Because certain things are getting more expensive, but not
| more valuable. A haircut in the bay area is much more
| expensive than one in Austin or Orlando or Philadelphia, but
| it's the same haircut.
|
| Other things have gotten more expensive but more valuable.
| For example a car today is more expensive than a car in 1960,
| but it's got _ton_ more comfort and safety features.
| imtringued wrote:
| >Good marketing, but a bad outcome once you've read Bastiat --
| jobs and wages are a cost.
|
| Wrong. You can't expect to increase the minimum standard of
| living without also increasing the minimum wage you have to pay
| to attract talent. The fact that companies have gotten away
| with lowering wages thanks to their monopsony power was a
| mistake to begin with. If you really want to lower the cost of
| production you also have to lower the cost of living.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Productivity goes up at Amazon, wages go up at Amazon,
|
| Productivity going up does not cause wages to go up. Lower
| supply of labor relative to demand or higher demand relative to
| supply causes wages to go up.
| repsilat wrote:
| I don't think Amazon's decision to raise wages was pure
| microeconomic pressure. Single market participants don't need
| to get their policies out of a textbook, and textbook
| responses don't get as much news coverage.
|
| High productivity leads to better margins. Better margins
| _allow_ Amazon to raise wages. Raising wages helped them hire
| in a competitive marketplace, sure, but it was also a
| political act. Amazon has been accused of mistreating
| workers, and paying them above the going rate defuses that
| accusation.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There may be a political aspect to it, but supply for
| warehouse type labor has been shrinking and demand was
| increasing for a decade, so they probably saw the writing
| on the wall and decided to kill 2 birds with one stone.
|
| But I do not think Amazon can afford to stay competitive
| with Target and Walmart and Home Depot and spend a material
| amount more on labor costs too. At least not without
| subsidizing the retail operations with margins from other
| areas of the business.
| bombcar wrote:
| I think it goes the other way - Target and Home Depot are
| beginning to leverage the fact that hey have warehouses
| across the country (their stores) - AND they provide
| quality control that Amazon seems unwilling to do.
|
| Which will be what sinks Amazon- becoming an fancy US
| storefront for Alibaba.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I agree Target and Home Depot are preferable since they
| do quality control and have in person warehouses
| everywhere. But they're all competing for the same labor,
| hence the rising wages. But I do not think one can pay
| much extra than the others and stay competitive on the
| pricing for the same goods.
| bombcar wrote:
| The existing retailers have a chance of reducing costs by
| utilizing more out of city warehousing; whereas Amazon's
| costs really have nowhere to go but up.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| This assumes an elastic supply of labor. Higher wages in
| warehouse work will draw more marginally-employable laborers
| into the general market, and off of public assistance.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| reminds me of Henry Ford's wage hike
| https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/ford-doubles-min...
| elliekelly wrote:
| > According to an article (above) in the Post sponsored by the
| automaker
|
| Interesting! I had no idea submarining was happening a hundred
| years ago. I wonder how common it was.
|
| This was my favorite line though:
|
| > Ford employees would be "demoralized by this sudden
| affluence," and, of course, Ford Motor Company would soon be
| bankrupt.
|
| Nothing hurts employee morale like a huge raise!
| bombcar wrote:
| If anything it was more common - the term "yellow journalism"
| comes from that era.
|
| Most of what we are looking back is the stuff with value that
| survived.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > > "demoralized by this sudden affluence,"
|
| > Nothing hurts employee morale like a huge raise!
|
| That seems likely to be language drift, and indeed checking a
| contemporary-ish dictionary produces:
|
| demoralize 2 c : to throw into disorder
|
| morale 2 b : a sense of common purpose with respect to a
| group : espirit de corps
|
| which sounds like a much less stupid concern.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I think the actual economics paper[1] is far more interesting
| than Amazon's PR spin on it. What Amazon (I suspect) knows but
| the paper authors sidestep a bit is the elasticity of the
| unskilled low-wage labor market. If you're a waiter or a cashier
| and your boss or the job requirements become unbearable it's not
| terribly difficult to waltz into Home Depot or the local grocery
| store and get a new job making the same amount of money.
|
| Amazon paints their $15 as a benevolent community service but
| given all that we know about the expectations and requirements of
| an Amazon warehouse worker it seems to me that Amazon's wage
| increase was necessary in order to compete in the labor market.
| If you could work in an Amazon warehouse for $X/hour or work
| stocking shelves at Target for $X/hour very few people are going
| to choose Amazon. And this is evidenced in the referenced/linked
| economics paper. Amazon's 2018 wage increase from $11/hour to
| $15/hour resulted in an average local unskilled low-wage increase
| of 4.7% suggesting those local markets didn't need to _meet_
| Amazon's wages in order to _compete_ with them.
|
| The $15 is enough to lure _some_ people to work at Amazon but it
| seems there are others for which slightly lower pay and the
| benefit of bathroom breaks is a trade-off they're willing to make
| in the labor market.
|
| [1]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3793677
| awillen wrote:
| "Amazon's 2018 wage increase from $11/hour to $15/hour resulted
| in an average local unskilled low-wage increase of 4.7%
| suggesting those local markets didn't need to meet Amazon's
| wages in order to compete with them."
|
| I think you're 100% right, but that doesn't mean they don't
| provide a useful service in bringing up the bottom. If you're
| in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25, you're suddenly
| dealing with employees that have a credible alternative of
| $15/hour. To your point, a lot of folks will trade some money
| for better conditions, but it makes it pretty untenable to pay
| less than half of what Amazon's paying.
| imglorp wrote:
| > slightly lower pay and the benefit of bathroom breaks is a
| trade-off they're willing to make in the labor market
|
| I really don't understand Amazon's position here. A small
| number of cheap improvements would vastly raise worker
| satisfaction. More bathrooms through the building, paid time in
| security lines, and some honest safety interventions are all
| cheaper than raising wages or even, say, a private space
| program or an airliner fleet.
| krapp wrote:
| Amazon is weird that way. It's a multi-billion dollar global
| corporation that's run like a mafia front. They'll spend who
| knows how many millions of dollars on video game kiosks[0] to
| incentivize productivity through addictive feedback loops but
| won't spend a dime updating or replacing the equipment their
| employees actually use.
|
| [0]https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/15/22331502/amazon-
| warehouse...
| skybrian wrote:
| These improvements sound good to me too, but they are not
| cheap. Paid time in security lines would increase worker's
| paychecks. It's effectively another way of raising wages. As
| is more breaks.
|
| (Amazon doesn't have a space program.)
| flerchin wrote:
| Blue Origin seems like a space program. Whether "Amazon"
| owns it is kind of pedantic.
| skybrian wrote:
| No, it's like saying Tesla and SpaceX are the same
| company. It means you're fundamentally confused about
| what's going on.
|
| (It's a pretty close parallel. Tesla is public and SpaceX
| is private. Similarly for Amazon and Blue Origin.)
| qchris wrote:
| I'm not sure if the parent was referring to Blue Origin as
| a space program, but Amazon very arguably is developing a
| space program of one sort or another, with services like
| AWS Ground Station [1] for operating satellites coming
| online.
|
| [1] https://aws.amazon.com/ground-station/
| tom-_- wrote:
| The paper shows employment elasticity wrt to wages is very low
| (Table 4, 5 page 50, 51).
|
| Sure, many workers would choose the less labor intensive Target
| job over the shitty Amazon warehouse job for the same wage but
| in many of the warehouse locations, there is simply not that
| much demand for low-skilled labor, otherwise the market would
| bear that out.
|
| Also, Amazon has more opportunities for career paths/upward
| mobility than a local Target/Home Depot.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| That's how it should work, and that's why wages have remained
| suppressed in our country for so long. In my area is a large
| turkey processing plant - if you ever eat turkey there's a good
| chance you've eaten something from there. I'm in Minnesota.
| Inside the plant is cold, wet, incredibly loud even with
| earmuffs, and the workers are doing repetitive tasks all day.
| In the 80s, it was a crappy job that paid well. Local people
| (including my mom) worked there as a sacrifice to get more
| money and get ahead. After that, they discovered they could
| keep the pay low if they hired on people that didn't have a
| better option - illegal immigrants. There was literally a sign
| advertising for people to come to that town of 20,000 at the
| Mexican border. But then they had to stop doing that, both for
| presumably legal reasons and because Mexicans have integrated
| and have better options. It just so worked out that our state
| started importing "refugees" from Somalia at the same time.
| I've been in the plant a couple of times myself. There are
| literally no base-level workers that aren't immigrants. None.
| In rural Minnesota. This has suppressed wages for our area as a
| whole for decades. It's a huge plant - if they already had to
| pay people $20 or $25 instead of what they do now just imagine
| the ripple effect that would have on the local economy.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| America should prioritize legal workers. Expel all of the
| illegal immigrants and force corporations to step up and pay
| livable wages.
| everly wrote:
| Seems like just doing the part about forcing corporations
| to pay livable wages would be sufficient (not to mention
| actually feasible).
| Aunche wrote:
| Only the people employed at a company get to decide
| whether or not a wage is livable, not you. Immigrants are
| naturally have lower expectations for standard of living
| and have families that live in much cheaper areas, so
| their interpretation of a livable wage is much lower.
| everly wrote:
| I don't think I suggested that I get to decide if a wage
| is livable.
|
| And I guess I find it odd that you've, apparently,
| decided that all immigrants have lower expectations and
| standards of living.
|
| I take issue with the notion that immigrants inherently
| deserve less because of some perceived expectation of
| what is good enough for them based on where they came
| from.
| Aunche wrote:
| > I don't think I suggested that I get to decide if a
| wage is livable.
|
| You are if you're implying that wages are somehow
| unlivable today.
|
| > And I guess I find it odd that you've, apparently,
| decided that all immigrants have lower expectations and
| standards of living.
|
| No. They decided that themselves when they decided to
| spend their summer in hundreds of miles away from their
| family to pick strawberries for the summer to undercut
| domestic labor. Surely, they're intelligent enough to act
| according to their best interests.
|
| > I take issue with the notion that immigrants inherently
| deserve less because of some perceived expectation of
| what is good enough for them based on where they came
| from.
|
| I don't think they deserve less. Unlike GP, I'm pro
| immigration. I just pointing out the incompatibility
| between both demanding a "living wage" and laxer
| immigration. The price of labor is determined by supply
| and demand just as like anything else with a price. Low-
| skill immigrants consume less than the average resident,
| so they increase the supply of low-skilled labor much
| more than the demand.
| everly wrote:
| Out of curiosity, do you consider the federal minimum
| wage ($7.50, last updated in 2009) to be livable?
|
| I'd also point out that immigrants labor isn't worth less
| in terms of pure output, but they're forced to accept
| less because they aren't offered the worker protections
| that citizens get. It's not a fair supply/demand market.
|
| Reducing all immigrants to strawberry pickers hundreds of
| miles from their families is also questionable.
| [deleted]
| Aunche wrote:
| > Out of curiosity, do you consider the federal minimum
| wage ($7.50, last updated in 2009) to be livable?
|
| The minimum wage is probably somewhat too low for the
| states, but is far too high for territories like Puerto
| Rico. Many employers can only afford to pay people less
| than minimum wage by either employing youths, who can be
| paid $4.25 an hour or remaining small enough to legally
| avoid having to pay minimum wage. Even then, labor force
| participation there is significantly lower than that of
| the US, which implies that a lot of them are simply
| working for less under the table.
|
| > It's not a fair supply/demand market.
|
| We don't live in a perfectly efficient market. An
| American citizen is always going to have an advantage
| over a foreigner from a poor country no matter what.
| However, the fact millions of people work so hard to seek
| employment here is proof enough that the market is
| efficient enough to improve people's lives.
| everly wrote:
| Puerto Rico is not subject to the exact same minimum wage
| laws as the states, it has several exceptions. And even
| if it were, it's laughable IMO to consider that a reason
| to punish workers in the rest of the US. "Sorry guys, we
| know you're worth more but we can't have those Puerto
| Ricans living too high on the hog"
|
| I don't know, your point seems to boil down to 'it's just
| like that because of how it is'. Policy matters and can
| have an impact on the status quo. Sure, we don't live in
| a perfectly efficient market but we can make
| improvements.
| Aunche wrote:
| > Puerto Rico is not subject to the exact same minimum
| wage laws as the states
|
| For a large part, it is. The exceptions are very limited
| in scope. The only reason their economy isn't completely
| messed up is because the minimum wage isn't enforced very
| well there.
|
| I'm not sure why you have the impression that I'm in
| favor of the status quo. I'm explaining why forcing
| employers to increase wages will do little to help
| domestic workers unless if you discourage immigration in
| some way. Even if you're able to double the minimum wage
| with minimal economic side effects, you would just
| incentivize even more immigrants to seek employment here.
| everly wrote:
| Fair enough, I just disagree and believe that increasing
| wages will absolutely benefit domestic workers,
| regardless of whether it incentives more immigration.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Only the people employed at a company get to decide
| whether or not a wage is livable, not you_
|
| If my opinion doesn't matter, my vote and political
| capital aren't on the table. If one wants public support
| for something, the public's opinion matters. Separately,
| if you ask a group of New York bankers if $500,000 is a
| livable wage for them, you'll get a spectrum of answers.
| imtringued wrote:
| Or just legalize them so they can ask for higher wages.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| It's more complicated than that. Raising wages results in
| increased demands elsewhere (e.g., housing). Increased
| demand of a limited supply will naturally raise prices.
|
| Put another way, _over the long term_ legislating
| significant wage increases without also creating incentives
| to also increase housing supply won 't solve the true
| problem. Sure, you can move to areas with lower housing
| prices and commute, but the resources (time & money) to
| commute is a cost as well.
| chillwaves wrote:
| Expel the illegal immigrants? How?
|
| Seems easier to just put real penalties for corporations
| that exploit unauthorized workers.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Or, require all employers to use E-Verify.gov
|
| Oh yea, raise the penalty for hiring illegial, or
|
| at least enforce the laws we alwready have.
|
| I'll probally get hammered for saying this here. HN crowd
| has this pollyannaish attitude towards problems that
| don't effect them, exception being Visa workers that are
| paid less than them, and the price of owning a home.
|
| I guess it's human nature?
| anovikov wrote:
| How about just starting to check papers in the streets
| and immediately detain and deport the illegals? What's
| hard about it? It's done here in Europe - you have very
| few illegals (some legal refugees who at times get
| annoying, but yet, they are all accounted for).
| satyrnein wrote:
| Thankfully, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to walk
| down the street in America without carrying any papers,
| so not having any papers does not prove anything.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| However, it is perfectly normal for a police officer to
| pick up a person just for walking down the street in
| America without carrying any papers, and once that person
| is held for 48 hours (which they can do without filing
| any charges) ICE can easily come and deport somebody.
| kirillzubovsky wrote:
| The price of turkey would go up, people will stop buying as
| much of it, kids in schools would go hungry. Eventually pig
| farmers will figure out a way to make pork-based-turkey, hire
| those workers, feed the kids, and overtake the turkey market.
| The demand for turkey will dry out, the plan will do a few
| rounds of layoffs and eventually shut down. As the result,
| people in town will lose jobs, will stop paying rent, will
| lose homes and move to a better place with more
| opportunities.
|
| Supply and demand is a wonderfully simple system that
| regulates itself, and as much as it sounds appealing, us
| messing with it will only make things worse.
| Jarwain wrote:
| That's a pretty big leap, from people not buying as much
| turkey to kids in school going hungry.
|
| Sure supply and demand would state that if the price goes
| up, demand goes down. What it Doesn't state is how much
| demand will go down, whether that decrease in demand
| Actually offsets the increase in price, or whether total
| revenue stays net neutral.
|
| Whole swathes of people wouldn't just stop buying turkey if
| the price went up a few cents, or maybe even tens of cents
| (but this is speculation, I'm not sure if anyone's
| published the numbers on how much the price of turkey would
| have to increase to support a higher wage). But people buy
| turkey over pork for a number of lifestyle reasons, too.
|
| Suppy and demand is more of a model than a system. It's not
| perfect, no model is, but it's useful. But life is a lot
| more complicated than a simple model
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| If you can't pay your workers fairly and remain solvent
| then that's not a business I want to exist.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Did you really just say that kids in schools would go
| hungry if a turkey factory paid enough that locals would
| work there?
|
| Did children go hungry in the 80s when this person says
| that the turkey factory paid people well?
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| It's a great point you make above, and reflects a lot of a
| wave of change in our country over the past 40 years. The
| analysis of meat packing goes one level deeper and according
| to the US govt has an additional cause:
|
| > _Industry consolidation has been accompanied by important
| changes in labor relations in meatpacking. In 1980, 46
| percent of workers in the meat products industry were union
| members, a figure that had remained stable through the
| 1970's. Most unionized slaughter plant workers belonged to
| the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, whose
| base wage rate was $10.69 an hour in 1982. In that year, many
| unionized firms began to press for large reductions in base
| wages, to $8.25 an hour, consistent with what was being
| offered in non-union plants. The union at first acceded to
| wage cuts, but by 1984 adopted a strategy to vigorously
| contest them, in the view that large wage cuts at older
| unionized plants only postponed plant closings. Between 1983
| and 1986, there were 158 work stoppages in cattle and hog
| slaughter plants, involving 40,000 workers. There were
| lengthy strikes, plant closings, and deunionizations at some
| ongoing and reopened plants.14 By 1987, union membership had
| fallen to 21 percent of the workforce, and has remained at
| that lower level through the most recent data (1997); wage
| reductions were imposed in most plants, and wages have risen
| only modestly since then._
|
| > _Declining unionization coincided with changes in slaughter
| plant demographics. Immigrants, primarily from Southeast
| Asia, Mexico, and Central America, make up large and growing
| shares of the workforces at both hog and cattle slaughter
| plants._
|
| There was a structural shift in power between workers and
| corporations. Unions representing the worker who had pushed
| for those higher wages were fairly systematically pushed out
| of power. The loss of power of unions is what led to the low
| wages. The use of immigrant labor is just the particular
| method companies went about implementing it, but if there
| hadn't been people immigrating it still would've been forced
| low wages by the corporations. This is evidenced by the fact
| that the low-wages began in the non-union corporations.
|
| A lot of people look at this same situation and mistake the
| cause for the effect. The cause of the situation was a huge
| shift in power away from workers to corporations via the loss
| of union power. The particular manifestation of how
| corporations used that power was by changing who they were
| hiring, but to be clear even without immigrants, wages
| would've still fallen as they already were doing. Ie if
| unions had negotiated and maintained a minimum wage of $10 or
| $12 it's irrelevant where the people they're hiring come
| from.
|
| 1. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41108/18003_
| ae...
| qwytw wrote:
| It's not obvious to me that huge growth in immigration
| starting the mid/late in 1970's accompanied with the
| increase in international trade were not the main reasons
| why labor unions lost most of their power. As soon as
| companies were able to bypass the unions by hiring "cheap"
| immigrants or by altogether moving/outsourcing
| manufacturing to other companies they were doomed. While
| outsourcing was probably not the most significant factor in
| the meat packaging industry (or food/agriculture industries
| in general) the decrease in high-paying jobs with low entry
| barriers in other manufacturing sectors still allowed
| companies to decrease wages.
|
| I don't really see how any attempt to prop up the unions
| without introducing prohibitive tariffs would have resulted
| in anything but American companies becoming totally
| uncompetitive (this mostly happened anyway, though...).
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Immigration relaxation actually starts in the '60s so it
| doesn't quite match up with your timeline. https://en.m.w
| ikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_...
|
| We do have an example of an industry that was protected
| by tariffs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax.
| For the most part Volkswagen, Toyota and friends are
| still doing fantastically in the US.
| qwytw wrote:
| Volkswagen & Toyota are doing great however their workers
| are being paid less in real terms than they would had
| been in the 1970s despite modern car factories being
| significantly more productive. And this is not surprising
| because they are competing with workers currently working
| other industries which are not protected by tariffs.
|
| According to
| https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-
| hub/charts/imm... immigration didn't start growing until
| ~1970 and it increased significantly in the 1980's and
| later.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Tariffs and regulatory barriers in the US just really
| don't have a great track record.
|
| Take railways. Railroad standards (until the late 2010s)
| were totally incompatible between Canada/US/Mexico and
| the rest of the world, and combined with Buy America
| regulations for federal funding you pretty much had to
| buy domestic. This had the effect of making international
| customers totally disinterested in incompatible American
| railroad locomotive products and hiking up costs for
| American railroads who could also not source
| internationally without a lot of paperwork, but also not
| actually resulting in a healthy American railroad
| manufacturing industry because it turns out the
| addressable market in just North America was not large.
| qwytw wrote:
| Yeah, I agree that in general tariffs and other trade
| barriers are in general a net negative for the economy
| (and I think this is/was the case in all developed
| countries). But I just don't see any other way high wage
| jobs could have been maintained in the manufacturing
| sector, with a simultaneously shrinking demand and an
| increasing supply in the labor market. Of course that
| would be at the cost of the consumer.
| briandear wrote:
| > being paid less in real terms
|
| That's a myth.
|
| https://fee.org/articles/dispelling-the-myth-that-wages-
| have...
| qwytw wrote:
| Not really... I wasn't talking about average wages but
| specifically about car factory worker wages:
|
| Ford assembly worker mean wage: $4.30 in 1970* (equal to
| $29.60 in 2020) $6.57 in 1976 _. ($30.84(
|
| average $20 in 2020* (range $13 - $33)
|
| And in any case the article only references the average
| wage and nobody is disputing that it has increased since
| the 1970/80s. However it has increased at much slower
| rate than worker productivity and incomes in lower
| quantiles have been largely stagnant due to rising income
| inequality.
|
| _https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.
| 1.49....
|
| *https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Ford-Motor-Company-
| Asse....
| vasco wrote:
| I'm all for good wages, but why was it OK for your mom to
| trade worse conditions for a salary that was on the higher
| end of what she could get in the 80s but it is not OK for
| Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now? Yes the pay is
| lower, but presumably these people are getting attracted by
| those signs at the border and make the decision to put up
| with these conditions to better their lot in life, the same
| way your mom did.
|
| I wish everyone could get a great salary and mostly that work
| conditions provide a safe environment for all workers, but I
| don't understand your argument unless I see it under the
| light of "foreigners = bad"
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Sounds like the pay is no longer on the higher end from the
| poster
| tolbish wrote:
| I read it as "Lying that you can't afford to pay local
| workers a decent living wage = bad"
| pessimizer wrote:
| > it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same
| now?
|
| If the Mexicans and Somalians are given safe US citizenship
| with the rights and leverage that entails, it's great for
| them to do the same now. They wouldn't, because the reason
| companies want to employ them is their weakness, and the
| stability of citizenship would entitle them to make demands
| about pay and conditions.
|
| Employing precarious immigrants isn't charity work.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| If the moral imperative is to let people in, the moral
| imperative is also to give them the rights of
| citizenship.
|
| Open borders without equal rights is woke apartheid :P
| rsj_hn wrote:
| > "but it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the
| same now"
|
| No one is arguing that Mexicans and Somalians don't have a
| right to leave their current employer and find a better
| employer. Oh, but you are talking about illegally entering
| another country they have no legal right to enter, which is
| a very different situation. Forcing yourself on a country
| where the citizens have decided to not allow you to enter
| is not the same thing as just looking for a higher paying
| employer.
|
| If you want open borders and believe that borders are
| immoral and citizens of a nation do not have the right to
| decide who is and is not allowed to be a fellow citizen,
| then argue for open borders and a one world government in
| which no nation has the ability to control who crosses
| their border and who can participate in their legal,
| production, electoral, and social insurance system. That is
| an intellectual position that a small minority holds, but
| make the case for denying citizens of a nation this right
| of self-determination and autonomy clearly and directly,
| don't couch it in the language of someone looking to switch
| employers. And then don't wring your hands that a nation
| has deteriorating solidarity and social insurance when you
| simultaneously advocate for citizenship having no meaning.
| pas wrote:
| Open Borders means increasing the immigration quota to
| 10x (or more times). No need for one gov, and hyperbole.
|
| Despite all the money spent on ICE and border patrol,
| deportations, etc. there are still a lot of undocumented
| workers, who are in turn exploited, which in turn pushes
| wages down.
|
| It would be much much much easier to let people go in the
| legal route. It would also help a bit with the war
| against cartels.
|
| Obviously the self-determination of the US population is
| at least as important as the humanitarian/altruistic
| principle of allowing people to seek a better future for
| themselves by moving to a better place. That said - as
| far as I know - economists are very much in consensus
| that legal immigration does not suppress wages.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| No, the parent claimed that anyone had a _right_ to force
| themselves on any country whenever they thought they
| could make more money. This idea that you have a "right"
| to cross whatever border you want is very different from
| changing laws to increase immigration.
|
| No matter what laws you pass, there will be people
| excluded, so if your position is that you have a _right_
| to live in any nation where your income is expected to be
| higher, then this _does_ require outlawing border
| controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the
| citizens in those nations _requires_ some supra-national
| authority that can override the will of the population.
|
| And this must be a _universal right_ otherwise the right-
| based logic does not apply. Thus it applies also to
| Mexico and most other nations where there are some
| countries somewhere in which wages are lower. Especially
| in Mexico, that would be a problem given they have a
| constitutional ban on immigration changing the
| demographics of Mexico, and even a border "barrier" at
| the south. Somalia, while mostly in anarchy, also would
| not allow uncontrolled migration to it if it ever obtains
| a functional government. Ethiopia, a rising star in
| Africa, has strict border controls in place. As does
| basically every nation on earth.
|
| The common consensus is that no one has a right to force
| themselves on a nation just because it would benefit them
| financially. That truth is not incompatible with
| immigration as a policy. _The debate is about who gets to
| set the policy_ -- the people whose nation is being
| entered or those who want to enter.
|
| So while my arguments are extreme in force, they are not
| hyperbole, as the comment I was replying to was staking
| out some very radical and anti-democratic positions, but
| couching them in the mild language of changing employers.
| I was merely pointing out the extreme nature of these
| claims, and was not engaging in hyperbole. Claiming you
| have a right to violate a nation's border controls is a
| very big deal, and has nothing to do with wanting to
| increase or decrease immmigration policies, just as
| claiming a buyer (rather than the seller) has right to
| decide how much a product should cost is a radical claim,
| even if it's couched in the mild language of
| affordability and seeking discounts.
| random314 wrote:
| > The common consensus is that no one has a right to
| force themselves on a nation just because it would
| benefit them financially
|
| I am not aware of any such common consensus. You are
| confusing legality with morality. Interracial marriage
| was also illegal. Blacks wedding whites was seen as
| blacks forcing themselves on the white community for
| their selfish romantic interests.
| derefr wrote:
| > then this does require outlawing border controls
| entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens
| in those nations requires [...]
|
| Implicit assumption: that people everywhere aren't just
| going to eventually all change their minds and be
| majority-for open borders in every country.
|
| Y'know, like with slavery. We didn't need a supra-
| national authority to get rid of that globally. Some
| countries just set an example by deciding to get rid of
| it; and then other countries' populations who interacted
| with those countries felt shamed into changing their own
| minds as well, which led to their own laws changing. It
| spread globally as a virulent meme. (Yes, we also
| established international bodies that crack down on
| slavery -- but 1. we did that _after_ slavery was mostly
| abolished; and 2. treaty bodies like that are toothless
| unless almost every country already agrees on the
| principle.)
|
| I'm not arguing that this is what _will_ happen with open
| borders; only that it 's not _impossible_ for it to
| happen, and that that has to be accounted for in this
| kind of argument.
| jlawson wrote:
| We did need a supra-national authority to get rid of
| slavery.
|
| British, Americans, and others historically fought many
| battles (often naval) and pressured many governments to
| stop slavery.
|
| What do you think ended the barbary slave trade? Why do
| you think Saudi stopped formally trading slaves?
|
| You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care
| about your morality in the slightest.
|
| The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. There
| are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of racial
| slaves (i.e. black people kept as slaves for being black)
| in places like Mauritania. Slavery-like transactions
| continue in the middle east, Africa, and India. Supra-
| national authorities are still pushing, albeit often
| ineffectually, to end this.
| derefr wrote:
| That's not a supra-national authority. That's a supra-
| national _force_. An authority is something people listen
| to, _without_ it forcing them to do so. Something people
| _give_ power over to, rather than having it taken from
| them.
|
| An elected leader is an authority. A valid one-world
| government would presumably have authority.
|
| A military superpower is not an authority. It's just a
| force. Every time it "unilaterally" makes a decision, it
| has to back that up with _renewed_ force. As soon as the
| force stops, its control stops. That 's not authority.
| (Think: the Byzantine empire. It had _force_ over much of
| Western Europe for a few hundred years; but the people
| there never saw it as a valid _authority_. So as soon as
| its ability to project _force_ ended, it lost control of
| its Western-European assets, and became the Eastern
| Byzantine Empire.)
|
| Also, a "supra-national" body like the International
| Court of Justice isn't an authority _or_ a force; it 's
| just a hub for communication. It has no command over
| anyone. The only thing it does is come up with ideas, and
| then -- if UN member countries _like_ -- they can take
| those ideas for their own (i.e. sign on to a given
| declaration to give it force within their borders.)
|
| Such bodies are basically like the IETF, issuing RFCs.
| There's nothing _requiring_ anyone to implement an RFC.
| You just implement it if-and-when you think it 's a good
| idea.
|
| Countries are top-level; nobody has true _authority_ over
| them. That 's what "sovereignty" means. You only have a
| true supra-national _authority_ if sovereignty ceases to
| exist.
|
| > You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care
| about your morality in the slightest.
|
| Adults don't generally change their ethical norms in
| response to exposure to external systems of ethics, no.
| But children often do.
|
| This is why many countries (e.g. the US) think that
| putting their media out on the global stage is important:
| it allows them to influence the political/ethical views
| of children in other countries in ways that make them
| think more like the origin culture of that media; and so
| make the country more likely to invite their cooperation
| and influence two or three generations later, when those
| children are now the country's leaders.
|
| There is a reason that e.g. America had to fight for
| sovereignty, but Canada did not. Or why France needed a
| series of internecine wars and bloody revolutions to
| establish democracy, but many neighbouring countries to
| France then peacefully, gradually established democratic
| societies some time later. Cultures are object-lessons
| for their neighbours!
|
| > The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on.
|
| Well, yeah. Precisely because there _isn 't_ a supra-
| national authority with any _authority_ to tell them to
| stop. There 's just people with guns. You don't have to
| listen to guns if you have your own guns; especially if
| the guy that would point the guns at you has too many
| other higher-priority people to point their guns at
| first.
| akiselev wrote:
| That would be all nice and well if enforcement wasn't a
| total farce. A nation can't argue sovereignty and then do
| nothing when it comes to enforcing it except superfluous
| PR moves and policy actively detrimental to that goal.
| It's like a country of warhawks without an army - it
| makes no sense.
|
| Enforcement of immigration laws at the employer level is
| practically nonexistent - business impacting fines are
| almost unheard of. The I9 verification system is a
| complete joke, unless you're actually here legally and
| you slip through the cracks because under-trained
| reviewers don't actually know the rules. Some employers
| benefiting from the cheap labor even teach immigrants how
| to circumvent it and the decision makers almost never
| face anything close to deportation or criminal charges.
|
| About half of undocumented immigrants are here
| "illegally" because they overstayed their Visa. Tracking
| those Visa recipients and checking in on them _at least
| once_ after expiration would be the easiest and cheapest
| way to reduce the undocumented immigrant population but,
| again, nonexistent.
|
| I'll stop there before I write a three page rant about
| all the shit I've experienced immigrating to the US
| legally. It's a farce and has only gotten more ridiculous
| over the last four years with ICE and the Executive
| Office for Immigration Review going out of control.
|
| The sad part is, I actually _agree_ that illegal
| immigration is a threat to national security and
| stability. The second order economic effects are
| unpredictable, it creates a shadow economy that makes
| circumventing labor, environmental, safety, etc laws much
| easier, and despite diversity being America 's strength,
| there is a lot of value in having some control over
| population growth and giving cultures time to acclimate.
| However, the crime isn't the illegal immigration, it's
| the total abdication of our legislators in their duty to
| protect our sovereignty and allowing an exploitative
| shadow economy to exist. There's no reason to punish the
| people stuck in the crossfire, especially when it makes
| defending sovereignty against actual criminals and
| enemies that much harder.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Enforcement of immigration laws at the employer level
| is practically nonexistent - business impacting fines are
| almost unheard of. The I9 verification system is a
| complete joke, unless you're actually here legally and
| you slip through the cracks because under-trained
| reviewers don't actually know the rules. Some employers
| benefiting from the cheap labor even teach immigrants how
| to circumvent it and the decision makers almost never
| face anything close to deportation or criminal charges.
|
| Yup, two years ago, seven factories owned by the same
| company. 680 individuals arrested for being undocumented.
|
| Not one supervisor, manager, or executive has been
| charged with anything in relation to these raids. And ICE
| has announced no plans to do so.
| Miraste wrote:
| This is definition shifting, no? "Open Borders" means
| open borders, i.e. no quotas. Like how "Defund the
| Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband
| police forces. Proponents of these slogans often explain
| that they really mean more limited, reasonable changes
| when questioned, but they mean what the words say. That's
| how language works. If the intended policies are "raise
| the quotas," say so. If it's "do away with controlled
| borders," stand behind it and explain why. Don't switch
| from one to the other as is convenient.
| MereInterest wrote:
| > Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and
| therefore disband police forces.
|
| Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there. It means to
| reduce the funding (i.e. defund) the police in the same
| way that education has been defunded. That doesn't mean
| that a group is entirely disbanded, rather than the scope
| gets similarly restricted. When education is defunded,
| this means that after-school programs get cut, and school
| lunch programs are reduced. It doesn't mean that the
| school itself gets shut down. Should police be defunded,
| it means that extraneous use of police force, such as for
| mental health checks, are no longer part of the budget.
| It also means those funds can be shifted to programs
| specifically designed for mental health checks.
|
| You are assuming that "defund" means to completely remove
| funding rather than partially remove funding.
| Miraste wrote:
| I guess that's fair, it's used both ways in different
| contexts. I most associate the word with its use in
| universities, in which "x program/department has been
| defunded" means that it's gone. There's only one
| definition of "open borders," though.
| MereInterest wrote:
| I'd agree there, though with the caveat that there are
| very similar phrasings that can have differences. I don't
| often hear people advocating for "open borders", but
| rather for "more open borders" or to "open up the
| borders". The former means to have no restrictions on
| movements between countries, while the latter two mean to
| have fewer restrictions, but still allow for a non-zero
| number of restrictions.
| wearywanderer wrote:
| It's a classic motte-and-bailey routine. The bailey are
| "open borders" or "defund the police" at face value. The
| motte are the more defensible positions they fall back on
| when challenged: _" Actually when I say 'defund' I mean
| they should continue getting funding but we just need
| some reform is all"_
|
| Often this is paired with gaslighting. When called out,
| somebody employing the motte-and-bailey may refuse to
| admit the bailey exists at all. People who argue against
| the bailey get ridiculed for thinking the bailey exists.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And yet we see, repeatedly, that the employers who do
| this hiring are rarely, if ever, punished.
|
| Two years ago, seven factories owned by the same company:
| 680 individuals arrested for being undocumented - a
| misdemeanor, leaving aside all the other polarization of
| opinions on that.
|
| It's a felony to (knowingly) employ someone without work
| authorization.
|
| Not one supervisor, manager, or executive has been
| charged with anything in relation to these raids. And ICE
| announced that they have no plans to do so.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| All of us in the US are here as a direct result of
| immigration (except native Americans). If immigration
| causes "deteriorating solidarity and social insurance"
| then it happened long ago before you and I were even
| born.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| You really don't think the US has a weaker social safety
| net and less solidarity than Europe?
|
| And the issue isn't necessarily immigration per se as
| ethnic fractionalization. E.g. if a ton of French expats
| were to immigrate to France that would create different
| levels of social strife than, say, a ton of Russians
| entering France. There have been many studies on this,
| e.g.
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586963?seq=1
|
| https://www.nber.org/papers/w20504
|
| http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4551797
|
| https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/archive/doc/eve
| nts...
| pessimizer wrote:
| Imported slaves aren't immigrants.
| jlawson wrote:
| Settlers are not immigrants in the normal sense of the
| word. There's a difference between moving to join a
| society and moving to land so you can spread your society
| onto it while ignoring/overruling anyone who might have
| been there.
|
| Also - I would say that from the point of view of the
| native Americans, the migration of Europeans into their
| land kind of did cause something like "deteriorating
| solidarity and social insurance". Wouldn't you? Can't you
| imagine why others would not want to suffer the same
| fate?
| vasco wrote:
| I'm not arguing about anything related to borders. If
| someone is working a non-remote job, I assume they are a
| local worker. What the comment I replied to based their
| argument on is that certain people should have the
| freedom choose to trade work conditions for higher wages
| to improve their lives, but other people shouldn't. The
| classification that was given for that distinction was on
| the basis of nationality or refugee status, read Mexicans
| and Somalians.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > should have the freedom
|
| ...is doing a lot of work here. No argument was being
| made about what Somalis and Mexicans should be allowed to
| do, arguments are being made about what US employers
| should be allowed to do. It's a common anti-slavery
| argument - the exploitation of people in a precarious
| position to do the same work that free people do demeans
| the value of work. If you want to see a real market in
| wages, and you have a real belief in the goodness of
| that, remove the legal situation that makes the immigrant
| workforce's situation precarious.
| throw737858 wrote:
| Companies who exploit illegal workers usually do not
| maintain basic safety. At peak of corona lockdown last year
| my friends had their passports confiscated by employer, had
| to pay overpriced accommodation and could not leave for
| lockdown. They lived in dorms, 12 people per room, there
| was covid outbreak. Job was nothing like advertised.
|
| You are arguing for slavery.
| prestigious wrote:
| Because they are breaking the market. Ideally we have
| continually improving life but if we keep bringing in
| people willing to work for less we will never progress
| lokar wrote:
| You should consider why "we" are absolutely entitled to
| continually improving life while people born abroad are
| not.
|
| There is no moral justification for that position.
| sneak wrote:
| Due to the inability of undocumented people to easily
| switch jobs, they can pay them a lot less. It's not equal
| pay for equal work.
| briandear wrote:
| So clearly we should enforce the laws against hiring
| illegal alien labor. It harms legal residents and
| citizens.
| sneak wrote:
| I don't think that's clear at all, no. Then you condemn
| people to starve instead of just being enslaved.
|
| Enforcing labor laws equally for all people (even in
| cases of undocumented workers) would be a better
| solution. Just because someone is undocumented is not a
| license for the employer to break additional laws.
|
| Equal application of the law should apply to all people,
| even if you consider them criminals. We give murderers
| fair trials and presumption of innocence, for example.
| fastball wrote:
| Of course, why else do you think corporately bought-and-paid-
| for dems think immigration should basically be open borders?
| Probably the largest anti-strong-borders people are Big Ag.
|
| The people that actually care about the workers at the bottom
| of the totem pole (Bernie Sanders mostly) were strongly
| against such policies until the increasingly polarized nature
| of our politics made it untenable to be on the "left" and not
| pro-endless-immigration.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm not generally in favor of
| protectionism and think our immigration system could use a
| bit of renovation, but anyone who pretends that low wages is
| just corporate America being mean and stealing profits for
| themselves without also acknowledging the impact of importing
| massive amounts of unskilled labor is being disingenuous at
| best.
| question000 wrote:
| This American Life did an episode about these plants and
| debunked the "Mexican billboard" lie.
| crooked-v wrote:
| What's with the scare quotes on 'refugees'? There are a lot
| of obvious reasons to settle newly displaced refugees
| somewhere they can get reliable low-skill jobs without having
| to look far.
| lobotryas wrote:
| Because there is a belief, not unfounded, that some portion
| of refugees (percentage depends on party affiliation) are
| lying about their situation and are actually just economic
| migrants.
| botwriter wrote:
| in the uk the ones crossing channel all seem to be
| fighting age males.
| lokar wrote:
| And what if they are? How is that justification for
| vilification?
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Does it not also suggest that Amazon has excessive control and
| ability to fix the price of labor in an area due to large size?
| irrational wrote:
| Another thing to consider is where are the Amazon warehouses
| located? They aren't as ubiquitous as Target, Home Depot, etc.
| Our closest one is a 40 minute car drive away by the airport.
| And no public transportation goes there. So do I drive in my
| car for 40 minutes to go to work for $15/hour, or do I go to
| work for $13.50-14/hour (the typical minimum wage where I live)
| at a place that is a few minutes away?
| pkaye wrote:
| I know Amazon build some huge warehouses in my city in the
| middle of the Bay Area. I think they are trying to bring down
| the delivery times by stocking common stuff locally for quick
| delivery.
| bombcar wrote:
| Amazon should just build giant warehouses underneath other
| buildings.
| blackoil wrote:
| building underground warehouse would be too costly. I
| would love to see pneumatic tubes with packets zipping
| around.
| kube-system wrote:
| Of course. How else do you entice literally hundreds of
| thousands of people to apply for a job?
|
| They've hired somewhere around a _million_ employees in the
| past 5 years.
|
| > The $15 is enough to lure some people to work at Amazon but
| it seems there are others for which slightly lower pay and the
| benefit of bathroom breaks
|
| I know a couple of people who work at an Amazon warehouse, and
| I've asked them about this, and they said it's never been an
| issue.
| [deleted]
| toast0 wrote:
| I think bathroom breaks in warehouses _was_ an issue several
| years ago. When that got enough media attention, it seems to
| have stopped (at least mostly); but now that bathroom breaks
| for drivers is an issue, a lot of people are assuming it 's
| the same thing, so it must have been going on the whole time.
|
| But while it's the same type of problem, it's not quite the
| same problem as before.
| blackoil wrote:
| Driver issue seems to be systemic and not something Amazon
| can solve. If nearest bathroom is 20-30 mins away I'll
| choose to pee in bottle, irrespective of the salary,
| stress, timings.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| If Amazon/UPS/Fedex wanted they could erect portaloos
| where they would be needed or devise a route that goes
| past a company facility every so often, so the driver can
| actually pee when they need to. It's a case of "don't
| want to", not "can't".
| wearywanderer wrote:
| I'd sooner piss in a bottle than the average portaloo.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Proper planning and facilities would mean you get regular
| good opportunities to use the bathroom, so that when
| you're half an hour away from one you don't need it.
| lobotryas wrote:
| Did you seriously just suggest that Amazon time the
| individualistic liquid consumption and bladders of their
| drivers? Do you have any idea how much outrage that would
| cause?
|
| At least you could suggest retrofitting each truck with a
| urinal. That would make more sense despite being equally
| untenable.
| wearywanderer wrote:
| Why would truck urinals be untenable? That actually
| sounds like a pretty good idea. The truck urinals could
| even have collapsible privacy screens (aka shower
| curtains.)
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I'm suggesting they have a bathroom and time to use it at
| the package pickup location, and if that's going to be
| the main bathroom drivers use then the delivery segments
| shouldn't be longer than 2-3 hours or so. And if that's
| not going to be the main bathroom then it should be
| Amazon's responsibility to make sure something is
| available, not the driver's.
|
| How did you get anything about tracking fluid intake from
| "regular good opportunities"? I'm really curious.
| wearywanderer wrote:
| If you've got to go, you've got to go. Holding in your
| pee for up to 2-3 hours isn't very healthy; that's the
| kind of thing Amazon got in trouble for demanding in
| their warehouses.
|
| So yeah, obviously they should have bathrooms at the
| warehouses that drivers can use. I'm earnestly surprised
| they don't already, it's common sense. But I don't think
| it will stop drivers from peeing in bottles.
|
| Edit:
|
| > _2-3 hours since the last bathroom break shouldn 't be
| unhealthy._
|
| That assumes you chose to avail yourself at that time. If
| didn't _feel_ like you had to use the bathroom at that
| time, you might neglect to do so anyway. Maybe because
| you were walking around outside your truck, and walking
| around somewhat suppresses that full-bladder sensation.
| Then you sit down in your truck and half an hour later,
| after a cup of coffee, you realize you have to piss. You
| 're still 2 hours away from your next bathroom break, so
| what do you do? Is this a consequence of poor planning on
| the part of the driver? Maybe. But that's inevitably
| going to happen anyway.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > If you've got to go, you've got to go.
|
| Yeah but I assume someone doing this for their day job
| can manage a bit of planning. As long as the proper
| opportunity is there, on-the-go emergencies should be
| quite rare and wouldn't be a systemic problem.
|
| > Holding in your pee for up to 2-3 hours isn't very
| healthy; that's the kind of thing Amazon got in trouble
| for demanding in their warehouses.
|
| 2-3 hours _since the last bathroom break_ shouldn 't be
| unhealthy.
| mindslight wrote:
| If I were given 20 minutes to drive to a bathroom, I
| would pee in a bottle and then take a 19 minute
| stationary break. Peeing in a bottle is incredibly
| convenient for men, and there are portable solutions for
| women as well.
| pwthornton wrote:
| Yeah this is reportedly an issue with UPS and Fedex as
| well. The problem is that America has very few public
| restrooms. During the pandemic where there were barely
| any private restrooms either, you can imagine how dire it
| was for drivers.
|
| America needs public restrooms. That's the core issue
| here.
| wearywanderer wrote:
| I have at times chosen to pee in bottles despite a nearby
| public bathroom existing, simply because the bathroom was
| very gross while the supposed grossness of peeing in
| bottles doesn't register at all to me. Some people seem
| to think this act is very gross, I get that... but I
| don't personally feel that way. To me, peeing in a bottle
| is about as inherently gross as peeing on a tree. I don't
| think either of these are inherently inferior to peeing
| on porcelain.
|
| To be fair I suppose, peeing in a bottle could be gross
| and messy if you only had a narrow-necked bottle. And in
| some situations it might get you into legal trouble. Both
| matters are resolved with a little common sense.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Also, volume.
|
| Amazon needs a lot of workers. You might get N qualified
| candidates per month with a $13, but need to offer $17 in order
| to get 3N.
|
| The more people they need to hire, the more they need to offer.
| This is often why "mom & pop" businesses often represent the
| lowest salary tier. They need few employees.
| jjk166 wrote:
| We live in very strange times when paying workers more to do a
| harder job is vilified.
| kirillzubovsky wrote:
| Conversely, or maybe tangentially (?), increased labor cost is
| how Amazon wins in the long run. It's the same logic they use
| for undercutting prices of consumer electronics, but in
| reverse.
|
| Today you can get an $x/hour at Amazon or Target, but if Amazon
| does it right and keeps driving costs down and prices up,
| coupled with continuous explosion in online shopping, in 10
| years Target loses its edge and you can only get a job at
| Amazon.
|
| It's not to say that short term gains aren't worth it for
| employees, but long term, those gains might already be baked
| into Amazon's logic.
|
| Today, they employ 1M people, but in 10 years, when there's no
| longer a Target or a Wallmart, they overnight add 10M robots
| and there's no one to say no at that point.
|
| They are notorious for playing very long games, and they don't
| seem to do anything that doesn't eventually benefit them.
|
| Being in tech I find the tactics very interesting, but it's
| getting progressively harder to tell if the world is becoming
| net positive as a result.
| klaudius wrote:
| Now that they have market power and monopoly position in certain
| areas they lobby for regulation to make it difficult for startups
| to disrupt them. They used no sales tax and lower wages when they
| were starting up, but now want to prevent the same advantages for
| startups.
| panick21 wrote:
| And if they had not raised wages people would accuse them that
| they are using market power to push wages down.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Why should we care about the plight of a startup that wants to
| use low wages as a competitive advantage?
| flavius29663 wrote:
| that is usually the case for most regulations. While it's wild
| west, big corporations are formed. Now the corporations want
| regulations. It's an old tale, and unfortunately the people
| think the government introduces regulations for their benefit.
| Regulations stifle competition and in the end the public
| suffers on the long term.
| mcny wrote:
| > Now that they have market power and monopoly position in
| certain areas they lobby for regulation to make it difficult
| for startups to disrupt them. They used no sales tax and lower
| wages when they were starting up, but now want to prevent the
| same advantages for startups.
|
| That is an interesting argument and I'd like to hear from
| members of the community about how they feel about this. (Sorry
| if the questions feel like they are begging the answer, I
| promise you I am trying to not bring my biases into this)
|
| Should everyone play by the same rules?
|
| For example, how should countries handle pollution? Do emerging
| economies (China PR in particular but it applies to all
| nations) have a different, lesser obligation when it comes to
| pumping carbon into the atmosphere? Did we (USA) and western
| Europe get a head start with our economy and therefore should
| be subject to lower limits on how much we carbon we pump into
| the atmosphere going forward? Or does this question sound
| absurd to you?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > That is an interesting argument
|
| It is a terrible argument. Amazon does not control wages,
| supply and demand curves do. Amazon having lower wages before
| is simply due to the market for labor at that time having
| more supply relative to demand (or less demand relative to
| supply).
|
| They did not have any special laws or circumstances which did
| not apply to everyone else, regarding the wages they pay. And
| they still do not.
| xwolfi wrote:
| The example of China is also a difficult one. If you look at
| countries, sure they pollute a lot more than Switzerland, but
| if you look at per capita (or say you imagine China not as a
| country but as dozens of Switzerlands), then they look quite
| better.
| imtringued wrote:
| >For example, how should countries handle pollution?
|
| Just set a cap based on cumulative emissions. 99% of the time
| such a cap is aspirational though... It may not be achievable
| or politicians have other priorities.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _set a cap based on cumulative emissions_
|
| My family immigrated to America. Given we're counting the
| sins of our forefathers, should the cap that applies to me
| be my origin country's? Or America's?
|
| How do we apportion the USSR's carbon emissions? Or the
| British Empire's?
| pjc50 wrote:
| > Or does this question sound absurd to you?
|
| It sounds like an extremely leading question, or at least a
| dozen separate questions. But the further you go back in
| history the more, larger, and nastier questions you find
| where one country gained an advantage at the expense of
| another, often including a huge number of human lives. Was it
| really right for France to insist on reparations from Haiti,
| for example?
| xwolfi wrote:
| It certainly wasn't right from a Haitian point of view, but
| sometimes, better put up with it and have a powerful ally
| during your start as an independent country, whatever the
| debt cost, than be fighting them forever at tremendous cost
| for every sides.
|
| Debt between countries don't matter much, and I certainly
| hope one day we'll have the budget to repay Haiti, but I'm
| happy we solved it with this infamy rather than murdered
| each other for decades. It's not the most optimal way we
| could have behaved, but we've been more abject with former
| colonies.
| geewee wrote:
| Wait, so is your argument that it should be okay to pay people
| dirt-poor wages because Amazon used to get away with it? I get
| that it's a classic tactic to avoid a loophole in legislation
| and then build a regulatory moat afterwards, but I don't really
| feel paying people more is a good example.
| varispeed wrote:
| This isn't right. If workers have to apply for any benefits,
| because they cannot live off what they get paid, it means other
| tax payers subsidise their wages, but Amazon keeps the profits
| (then fakes losses and avoid tax). They are essentially stealing
| from everyone.
| kaliali wrote:
| While it is true that Amazon raised their wages to at least
| $15/hr, they also cut healthcare, benefits, and other things
| their employees were receiving.
|
| Why Amazon is Begging For Regulations: The Twisted Economics of
| Amazon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPGZgujnVek
| Multicomp wrote:
| Anecdote: Because of a months-long labor shortage and being
| unable to staff operations even after multiple temp agencies were
| engaged, an employer somewhere in the universe raised wages to a
| floor of 15 per hour this past month. It used to start at minimum
| wage, then went to 8 in 2014, now here.
|
| Everyone who was getting +1,2,3 dollars over that got bumped
| porportionally, so if you were at 15, you now got 17, if you were
| at 22 (only things like paramedics) you were at 25 etc.
|
| Why? Amazon has a warehouse nearby. We've bled staff to them for
| years.
| andagainagain wrote:
| A local union factory relatively recently started hiring like
| crazy a few years back. Their wages were higher than every
| other job in the area, and the same thing happened. Within a
| year a job that WAS offering $10.50 and saying that they were
| generous started offering #$12... then $13.50... then $14. Now
| they're also offering a few hundred dollar bonus as well.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| Making it obvious they could have afforded that before.
| minitoar wrote:
| I don't understand this argument. I could afford to pay
| more for most services but I don't unless I have to.
| Sebguer wrote:
| Are you a company? You are an individual and paying for
| things comes from the money that you earned with your own
| labor.
|
| A company's money comes purely from extracting value from
| its workers. It then tries to return as little value as
| possible to the people who created that value, in order
| to reward its owners.
| missedthecue wrote:
| " _A company 's money comes purely from extracting value
| from its workers_"
|
| This is really hard to believe because it's pretty
| observable that labor isn't the only input to production.
| If that was truly the case, why would anyone work for a
| company? Why not go work for yourself and skip the middle
| man?
|
| The truth is because production not only needs labor, but
| it needs capital, land, and entrepreneurship as well.
| Labor is only one component, and a decreasing one
| relative to years gone by. (For instance, the US auto
| manufacturers make more cars now then ever with fewer
| employees tham ever)
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I don't understand this argument.
|
| It counters a common argument against minimum wage
| increases. The argument goes "Small businesses can't
| afford raises. If they are forced to pay their employees
| more, they will go bankrupt, leading to unemployment, and
| low wages are better than unemployment, so you shouldn't
| raise the minimum wage"
| nitrogen wrote:
| Has there been any effect on downstream prices of the goods
| and services offered by those companies, or has it all been
| pure gain for the workers?
| eloff wrote:
| I'm surprised paramedics would only make $22/hour.
|
| Estheticians and hair stylists make more than that (including
| tips) at a senior level.
| bombcar wrote:
| Including tips and senior level makes a big difference.
|
| What do entry leaves hairstylists make?
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Lol... back when I was a paramedic circa ~2014, paramedics
| started at $14/hour where I'm from. The nurses were starting
| at more like ~$40/hr. (Northern coastal CA, btw)
|
| Crappy job, terrible pay. I only did it because I thought the
| skillset would be valuable while I got an engineering degree.
| Newly graduated engineers with a 4-year degree and an EIT
| cert. (in the civil field) started at around $18-$20 / hr.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It's a gatekeeping job for a lot of medical stuff. Also if
| you're looking to become a firefighter or cop it's a very
| nice thing to already have on your resume.
|
| Basically people put up with it because it's usually a
| stepping stone toward a job where you can print easy money.
| paulcole wrote:
| What job (where you can print easy money) does experience
| working as a paramedic directly qualify you for?
| sundaeofshock wrote:
| Physician Associate. To apply for PA school, one must
| have health care work experience.
|
| https://www.aapa.org/career-central/become-a-pa/
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| There sure are a lot of roadblocks in our country to
| having enough medical professionals to keep wages from
| going down.
| influx wrote:
| It's shocking to me that this hasn't been addressed in
| healthcare reform.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| There's a powerful guild that spends a lot of money to
| maintain the status quo.
| [deleted]
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Working as an EMT counts as "clinical experience" some
| amount of which is required or "encouraged but
| practically speaking required unless you know someone who
| can pull strings for you" for med school admission.
| lucian1900 wrote:
| A minor nitpick, it's not so much a labour shortage as a wage
| shortage. Clearly the workers are there, shown clearly by them
| taking jobs when paid better.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| A useful definition of labor shortage would be when there
| exists no one(s) that can perform a certain task in a certain
| area, such as not having a specific type of doctor in a rural
| setting.
|
| The learning curve for warehouse work is very low, so if you
| cannot find someone that can do it, you are either in a
| geriatric community or you are not offering attractive wages
| (so wage shortage is more accurate than labor shortage).
|
| Although wage shortages can lead to labor shortages years
| down for tasks that have high learning curves.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| >you are not offering attractive wages
|
| IOW, not competitive in a free market in labor.
|
| Employers who talk about free markets have less enthusiasm
| when it hits the expense side of their P&L.
| slim wrote:
| This is maybe in reaction to the "make amazon pay" global day of
| action from last week
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/MakeAmazonPay
| StandardFuture wrote:
| A negative article about Walmart and a positive article about
| Amazon on the HN front page at the same time?
|
| There is NO WAY this could ever be PR firm coordinated ... NO
| WAY. I would NEVER break HN rules and EVER imply such a thing.
|
| I follow the rules.
| TedShiller wrote:
| It's called inflation
| pkilgore wrote:
| Why are we linking to the press release instead of the paper?
| [deleted]
| anti-nazi wrote:
| time for a living wage across the board. if you can't afford to
| pay your employees a living wage you do not deserve employees
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-05 23:01 UTC)