Hacker News Reader

Comment by zpeti | Hacker News Reader

I’m genuinely interested in what people who think of amazon as an evil company think it should do.

It hardly ever makes a profit. Any profit it makes is from AWS usually.

It is popular because it’s so cheap, which is why people buy there. So really the solutions can only be:

1. Raise prices and consumers suffer 2. Keep wages low and workers suffer 3. Stop existing.

I wonder how many people who complain about amazons working conditions don’t shop there and buy the same product for a higher price elsewhere. I’d guess not many.

View on HN

Consumers suffer because they won't buy that 50in tv? Really, any business that exploits workers should not exist. If some goods are just too expensive then people should really learn to live without them. I don't mind "suffering" as a consumer if what I pay reflects the real costs of production. It's called honesty.

The problem is that any company as big as Amazon is a billion pound train moving at high speed, it can't make turns that fast. So while I would like for them to try harder I don't expect it to happen.

That might well be, but your view of how consumers should behave is not what happens in the real world. A lot of things in the world should be some way you imagine but they’re not.

Otherwise amazon (or Walmart) wouldn’t exist, because everyone would support their local store. But they don’t. Prices matter.

A potential solution would be to pass regulations that protect workers. Examples could include minimum wages, profit sharing plans, or mandatory benefits.

That wouldn't necessarily affect consumer behavior but it would affect what strategies corporations are able to use to service that behavior.

Ok, but then amazons prices will be higher. Taken to the extreme amazon might not exist because it can’t deliver the low prices it has so far.

Is that what you want? If you do, that’s fine, that’s a fair enough perspective, but understand that you are probably making it harder for people with less money. Same goes for Walmart.

I think that there needs to be a balance. Neither extreme redistribution nor extreme capitalism seem to work well for society as a whole.

I also think that we need more progressive taxation and social benefits which would offset some of the price increases.

There will always be a company that delivers products according to the minimum regulations required by law - that's how capitalism and competition are meant to work (given a near-unlimited labour supply).

Correct. But in this Imaginary scenario it will Certainly be more expensive than current amazon. Is that more acceptable, to say the poorest in society, than bad worker conditions?

The poorest in society, at least in a functioning capitalist society, are those either employed according to the minimum regulations or those receiving state benefits. By raising both of these, we raise the purchasing power of the poorest in society, hopefully in a way that is commensurate with the increased costs.

We are able to provide both good working conditions and a living wage to all people. We can afford it.

> Ok, but then amazons prices will be higher.

Yes they will be higher. Other companies that don't treat employes that badly, whether out of goodwill or due to being in places with more regulations, will be more competitive.

The minimum wage in the UK is $10.55 and amazon still works just fine. In fact we’ve had 1 day delivery for a long time, and it’s still working post-covid.

I agree. I even remember an article about an Amazon warehouse worker that could only afford diapers sold by Amazon because they were the cheapest. The irony.

But like someone else mentioned, there are countries where Amazon has to pay minimum wage and it works just fine. I think we as consumers have the responsibility to vote with our wallet but we as society have responsibility to put boundaries into laws to prevent abuse. So in my view consumers, suppliers and legislators are at fault.

I don't buy from Amazon because they're the cheapest, but because of the convenience and the excellent support. I wouldn't mind at all if they raised all prices 10-20% to pay their workers better.

Likewise, I can't think of a single thing I get from Amazon that I wouldn't be okay with paying 25% more to, say, support their workers and be more sure the stuff wasn't counterfeit etc.

Doing this WOULD make it more difficult for Amazon to crush and destroy every possible local store and national chain store that could ever exist, thus making it more possible for other choices to exist out there in the world (or even in our own communities where we live!) so from a stock market point of view, from a 'Jeff Bezos First Trillionaire' point of view, I can see why they feel compelled to go as hard as they can. Their purpose is not really to serve people, but to destroy everything else that serves a similar function as them, in order to be completely dominant and allow for, effectively, NO MARKET but just only them.

That's called a unicorn.

I'd rather pay 25% more and have… a market, I guess. I'd rather have different options. I see the motivations here, but I don't mind saying there's no benefit to ME in them. I'd be better off with Amazon only one of many supply chains I could draw on.

They have to be shockingly extreme in order to stifle the whole market, otherwise stuff will survive as a 'less good option' and remain accessible in spite of not being as 'good'.

So then why do you buy from amazon instead of elsewhere?

it makes no profit yet Bezos is the richest man in the world by some margin?

How can you buy into that narrative.

The no profit book keeping is just a way to avoid paying tax.

As a shareholder I would rather see them pay fairer wages, be taxed appropriately and have a slower rate of growth.

If the cost of scaling at the speed they scale comes from unethical business practices then the answer is to scale slower, not exploit the worlds poorest and most vulnerable so that Jeff, myself and a load of other privileged capitalists can get even wealthier.

I’m not buying into anything but investors are. Amazon isn’t profitable. It’s not to avoid paying tax, it’s to reinvest. And because investors don’t care about profits in amazon it makes bezos the richest man. This doesn’t have anything to do with my initial comment though. Amazon is cheap because it pushes costs down in every area. Including workers. And consumers like that.

My answer to your initial question (what do people think amazon should do?)

Invest less in growth and more in the human capital that is essential to running the business.

Playing by a different set of rules guided by Jeff's meglomania has driven them to the top and that is laudable.

Once you've conquered the world do you still need to keep squashing the people you lead? What is it serving at that point other than pure egotism ?

Ok, so In your opinion amazon is “done”. Game complete. From now on it’s megalomania to grow.

This isn’t how the world works. If you don’t develop others will take your place. Amazon is simply the best at this right now.

Even so, as consumers everyone has every right not to buy from amazon. But they do.

Nope, I am not saying cease growing.

From my POV the most productive growth amazon can make as a company would be engaging in better ESG practices There are forms of capital outside of material assets and intellectual property.

Amazon is losing human capital (tbray as a high profile example, but I am sure he's the tip of an invisible and silent iceberg) Amazon is losing brand capital which will hit the bottom line (ethical consumption is an ever increasing trend) Amazon will continue to irk Governments with its lack of respect for sovereignty laws (tax in particular, but also labour and monopoly).

I do believe that at some point the customer is the one actually that is at fault. If you buy from amazon, it means that you are accepting what is happening in their warehouses. Why everyone is looking to save one penny to buy an other yet product that will remain on a shelf after a month? Be reasonable, buy to a company close by even if it cost a bit more; at least that person will make profits and will come to eat at your restaurant!

If high labour costs would be so detrimental to society then we Scandinavians would still be boarding those transatlantic steamers. But we aren't.

It is ridiculous that you've boiled it down to those two options. The 3rd is cutting executive salary and paying low wage workers. Also amazon is not cheap compared to my local competitor and aliexpress, people buy from amazon because of convenience.

And amazon makes profit on non-AWS products as well, don't be silly. I can literally google their financial statements to prove this.

I am often amazed at how executive pay is overlooked in these debates. I have no qualms with founders making a pretty penny from taking the risk of starting the company. Most executives appointed once company has gained momentum don't deserve the huge pay they get. Don't get me wrong they deserve to be well paid but not as much as we are paying them. I have been in companies where people said to be "absolutely" critical leave announced and company continues to function without missing a beat.

I am often amazed at how good HN readers are at valuing labour of both workers and executives.

They aren't magicians, or doing something only they can do. In fact, name any other job that pays as well, even for failure. As mentioned earlier they take no risk and get all the reward. C level pay is the biggest scam of our time. And nice dodge with the ad honinem. A third option was presented as reducing c level pay and your response was to call anyone critical of thus bullshit an armchair expert. Why is your opinion so weighty? Bigger arms on your chair?

> I am often amazed at how good HN readers are at valuing labour of both workers and executives.

I suppose you are naive enough believe the world is a true meritocracy

The fundamental problem with this solution is a simple, numeric one: there are very few executives and a lot of low-wage workers, so large-sounding pay decreases for the former can only fund tiny pay increases for the latter.

If your execs earn a billion dollars a year collectively, and you have 200000 employees, you can distribute 2500 dollars to them all and the execs would still earn more than the low wage workers. So if simple arithmetic is your thing, there you go.

Amazon has around 570000 employees, and 22 executives. One of those executives actually earns a lot more than 1 billion dollars. Nevertheless, with just 2 billion dollars you can give a decent pay raise to every single one of those employees. Some don't need it as much as others, but whatever.

Is Amazon really that cheap? I live in a different market from the US, but Amazon is usually cheap but rarely the cheapest. But they are a one-stop shop for everything, they already have your credit card number, and you know what you’re getting in terms of shipping speed/return policy. They’re more convenient than cheap.

At least for me the differentiating factor is often shipping cost. When I look at purchasing certain products (e.g. weights for exercise) from other vendors, the shipping costs are often higher than the actual price of the product.

if you reinvest every penny you do not make a profit, but you still grows your business...

that still should not stop you to pay a livable wage and provide fair conditions to your employees

amazon is far to close a monopoly anyway :/

> It hardly ever makes a profit. Any profit it makes is from AWS usually.

Reinvesting retail profits is a tax avoidance strategy.

Amazon atleast in India is not the cheapest option.

I usually buy stuff from Chinese e-commerce websites where you can find things much cheaper.

aliexpress ? takes a lot longer for delivery though.

Yes, I look for one that ships with Gati.cn it usually takes 7 days to arrive here.

Amazon India usually has same product listed for 2-3x the price.

it says the domain is for sale.

Imagine thinking that China is less evil than Amazon.

It's not about any of them being evil.

I've limited money and I choose to spend so that I get maximum spending least within the legal framework.

And most of the Amazon basics item come from china too.

So doesn't matter who you choose, china is benefits either way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com