Amazon issues rare public response to Bernie Sanders
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Agreed. This isn't an Amazon only problem, but they are certainly egregious perpetrators of trying to play cities and states off each other for tax breaks and other benefits at taxpayer expense.
Let's also not forget the whole "peeing in bottles out of fear" fiasco: https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/undercover-author-finds-amazon-...
The whole idea that public assistance subsidizes employers is based on the false assumption that people only require to get paid what they "need" and therefore accept lower wages because they don't need as much due to government aid.
I think a more plausible explanation is that employers pay employees based on productivity and supply of employees with that skill set. If an employer can make $15 an hour per marginal employee, then that employer will not pay more than $15 an hour, regardless of what employees demand. And if there is an oversupply of employees with those skill levels, then they can choose from the pool based on the market rate. This is pretty standard economic theory.
Another way you can think about it is that Amazon is helping states and federal government by paying these employees, otherwise the welfare payments would be higher.
Right, and part of the point of all this rhetoric is the fact that our current economy is upending economic theory. Labor is in short supply and wages aren't budging.
If a company needs 10 employees, then it will hire 10 employees at whatever cost, or stop operating. If it can only hire those employees at $100 an hour, then it will have to set its prices so that it makes at least $100 / employee-hour. And if it can't, it will operate at a loss or stop operating.
It's not $15/hour if you have to include non-hourly wage compensation. It's below $15/hour. And that only applies to full time associates.
Alas, Amazon will put up more than a fight than Disney did [1]. Good practice for the next corporate targets.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/disney-world-min... (Walt Disney World Workers Reach Deal for $15 Minimum Wage by 2021)
This is what immediately caught my eye when reading Amazon's response.
I was under the impression that their FCs are primarily staffed by contractors. If "associate" is just corporatespeak for employee, then that assertion (most of Amazon's rebuttal, really) could be remarkably insignificant, even if technically accurate.
For example: Amazon could end up paying their employees an extra $3/hour while eliminating the state costing taxpayers $6/hour equivalent of benefits run through layers of bureaucracy. The difference is that instead of the entire tax base holding the bill, it would be the customers of Amazon.
The fact that this is a novel concept is terrifying.
If a company is paying so little that the government has to step in and give them extra money just so they can pay the rent and eat, then that effectively means my tax dollars are subsidizing their wage.
This attitude allows Amazon to pay less than a living wage. The winner of SNAP isn't the person receiving SNAP, it's the person's employer which is allowed to pay their employees less. My tax dollars aren't subsidizing the employee, they're subsidizing Amazon.
If the market value of labor has fallen below the threshold needed to live an acceptable (as judged by society) lifestyle, the burden of making up the difference should fall on society -- not arbitrarily on the companies which happen to do business in industries whose jobs require essentially no skills to perform.
Hypothetically speaking, if Google automated away 50M tedious and repetitive "white collar" jobs and those 50M workers are now competing for warehouse jobs, why must warehouse operators' pay a living wage while Google pays nothing for putting 50M workers out on the street?
The burden of caring for society's poor must fall on society. As it was society's technological innovation and policy decisions (i.e. globalization of labor markets) that has led to the destruction of unskilled labor's market value.
> why must warehouse operators' pay a living wage
because if they don't then their warehouses get shutdown and anyone they try to bring in faces large men with bats.
and if you don't like that future, then start protecting unions before it turns into riots again.
https://www.thenation.com/article/lessons-death-seattles-ama...
> Hypothetically speaking, if Google automated away 50M tedious and repetitive "white collar" jobs and those 50M workers are now competing for warehouse jobs, why must warehouse operators' pay a living wage while Google pays nothing for putting 50M workers out on the street? [...] The burden of caring for society's poor must fall on society.
Society should assist the unemployed. I am in favor of UBI.
But if a job pays so little that you still need assistance to pay rent and eat, then why work?
In other words, if I had no skills, and "society" was giving me $25k/year to live off of, and some company is only willing to pay me $20k/year to do a job, I'd have zero incentive to take that job.
Another counter-point I thought of is that if the assistance does go away, and so people wouldn't have incentive to work for less than what UBI provides, it would incentivize companies to pay more.
This seems to be a common fallacy, because people call it the 'labor market'. However I would claim that there is no labor market in the classical econ 101 sense.
A market needs to be transparent, have low transaction costs, be voluntary and have a sufficient number of buyers and sellers.
Otherwise you might still call it a market but it will not have any magical properties that the government shouldn't mess with.
For the most part, having a job is a requirement to have a place to live and eat.
This is a bandaid to try and help against one particularly blatant form of exploitation by corporations.
I guess this is because of his proposal to tax companies 100% of an welfare benefits their workers get?
Love that idea BTW.
> While Senator Sanders plays politics
god forbid a US senator plays politics.
This from the company that launched a massive and blatant astroturfing campaign last week.
> In addition to highly competitive wages and a climate controlled, safe workplace
Bet a signed dollar they stuck climate controlled in because of the old stories about them getting ambulances to wait outside instead of installing AC.
I'll believe the employees. Lets hear what they have to say, anonymously and candidly.
It's the government's job to implement regulations that protect society from free capitalism. In so doing, it will level the playing field so companies no longer have to choose between 'doing the right thing' and 'increasing existential risk'.
'Public shaming' should be used an agent for change -- not to satiate some inner desire for justice. In this case, we can't expect these companies to change on their own accord regardless of the shaming. So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company.
> So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company.
Unfortunately, shaming the government isn't enough.
You are, however, attempting to shame/villify them into change. That's just not going to work.
It will require a regulatory intervention to change their behavior.
Every hour that goes by where these workers don't have their wages raised is thousands of hours they weren't paid a living wage. At the same time, each dollar these workers need in government support is a dollar out of taxpayer pockets and into Amazon's pocket.
In any case, the solution here is not to shame/vilify the company. You need to apply real economic/legal pressure.
My understanding was that, though the "Flex" delivery workers could be independent contractors (where allowed, similar to the ride hailing situation), that's not possible for the fulfillment workers.
That is, they're contractors from Amazon's POV, but they're still employees of a contracting company (aka body shop [1]). I'm not sure how unionizing would work in that situation, but I imagine at least something must be possible if there always must be (at least) an employer.
[1] at least in tech. not sure if that bit of slang gets used elsewhere.
Which is what Sander's is suggesting.
We shouldn't shame them. We should encourage the workers to unionize and fight for their rights.