Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephengillie | Hacker News Reader

Back in my day, Walmart was the great evil retailer, threatening to put everyone out of business. Many towns had their retail core destroyed by having a Walmart open, defeat all the small businesses, then close.

Are we supposed to penalize Amazon for foresight?

View on HN

I didn't say anything about penalizing them. The point is that it's a shrewd business move planned out years ago. It wasn't done out of purely good intentions and may not have the desired effect, and many people seem to miss that.

Who cares?

If it benefits more people then what difference does it make as to why it was done?

Because it might not actually benefit more people? The posted article is about warehouse workers losing bonuses and stock, which would negatively affect anyone already over $15/hour (which happens to be quite a few who have multi-year tenures).

This change has long-term repercussions in total current and future jobs offered, within Amazon, its competitors, and the wider labor market with govt influence. Is is not worth caring about such wide-reaching externalities of a $1 trillion company?

That isn't what I said - I said if it does benefit more people. If it doesn't, then my statement doesn't follow.

People always act like the sky is falling. Minimum wages were higher in terms of actual value many years ago and the world didn't end then and it won't end now.

Does it really benefit more people though?

Walmart and Amazon are prime examples of centralizing forces that slurp up wealth into urban areas and increase wealth inequality. Sure minimum wage goes up, but at the cost of more money leaving circulation in rural economies. It’s a non-trivial topic.

Rural economies are too small to matter, there are more people who stand to benefit in cities and generate more economic prosperity in cities.

Why should I care about a dying small town in the rust belt?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com