Hacker News Reader

Comment by ue_ | Hacker News Reader

>optimize the efficiency of those workers, make them achieve more with less effort via technology.

And to allow Amazon to make bigger profits for itself by laying off or continuing to exploit workers rather than valuing automation as a method so humans can work less.

View on HN

I actually was one of those developers, for a number of years. The reality is that we're still very far away from a robot that can visually identify random objects, identify them, and then pick them up in a safe manner. Humans are awesome at exactly that.

The automation is coming, yes, and many very tedious tasks are being automated but Amazon has never laid off warehouse employees because a robot replaced them- they just move those humans to jobs robots can't do yet, and grow faster.

The fact is that automation replaced jobs (good thing!) yet rather than the 'savings' being returned to the labourer, so that she no longer needs to work, it is passed to Amazon. That person who was replaced would no longer need to work, at least not that job, in an ideal world. Rather than the automation improving the lives of the workers, it causes suffering by means of making people either unemployed (unemployment itself is not bad, it is only bad within Capitalism because the worker is unable to sustain herself without the State) or to move them to yet another job.

In some respects I believe the re-purposing of humans for other jobs may be worse.

>it is passed to Amazon.

Incorrect. If that is true, it's only temporary. It is passed to the consumer via lower prices due to competition pressure.

Bezos's famous line: 'Your margin is my opportunity'. When Amazon cuts costs, they cut prices to gain market share.

What about the labourer? He is still being exploited when if it weren't for the profit motive he would not be required to sell his labour. That difference in profit, once the cost of the machinery and its maintenance is substracted, could be passed to the displaced worker.

Why should it go to the 'consumer'?

Is the 'labourer' not a 'consumer'? If all prices fall due to competitive pressure, all consumers and thus all 'labourers' benefit from cheaper goods. Sure, the 'labourer' may not receive extra compensation due to lower costs and higher margins, but they end up able to purchase more with their dollar when prices fall.

We're all in the same market, I don't see why you would have to make a distinction between 'labourers' and 'consumer'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com