Hacker News Reader

Comment by mping | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com