Hacker News Reader

Comment by only_as_i_fall | Hacker News Reader

Which is probably for the best.

I'm sure there are more productive or fulfilling things for people to be doing than shuffling boxes around.

If shuffling boxes around gets them the highest pay they can get on the market it just may be the most productive thing they can do! That means being a useful cog in a very effective machine.

Unless Amazon can do the same work for less overall cost with robots.

I guess my point is that the potential for automation doesn't seem a compelling argument to worsen working conditions

My point is that being a cog in the larger machine may be the most productive thing for a person. Even if it means doing a boring, repetitive job. For example someone shuffling boxes in Amazon may be way more productive than an office worker in some small company.

I think it's important to highlight the difference between productive and profitable here. There's likely many things someone could do that's more productive, as in creates a benefit for those around them, but those productive things aren't always paid. What these workers are doing is getting the highest wage they can by engaging in work owners of capital believe will lead to profits from the market

The terms productive and profitable are tightly related to each other. Of course you can argue about definitions, but I think I understand what you mean anyway. Yes, some things are hard or impossible to price (measure). But nonetheless pricing is the best tool in this complex world that we have for deciding what is most productive. We get monetary compensation for our work that we can exchange for the work of others. The more we earn the more we can do. We can help others with our earnings, maybe more this way than by direct contribution. It is a matter of specialization and division of labor that helps everyone be more productive.

I think the OP just means productiveness in time, ie. spending 8-10 hours a day moving product while being paid 2x but working 3x as hard isn't as 'productive' as if you were doing something you loved for those 8-10 working hours, even if you were being paid a median $7.50/hr wage (not that most would achieve this by working the gas station register). If everyone could get a free education in what they want to do for a living, people wouldn't choose to work at Amazon and waste a third of their daily life moving boxes.

The root of the problem is that Amazon's $15/hr minimum attracts talent as a result of the price of things, including rent, continuing to rise, sometimes up to 15% YOY - people are often required to either work 16 hours a day at 2 jobs or work 8-10 hours at Amazon to reach the minimum income needed to have nice-enough living conditions.

I do not perceive productive as equal to fulfilling. But I understand you mean that for some people the sacrifice would not be worth the extra pay. It is another issue. Being a cog in a machine for x hours a day is a sacrifice. One voluntarily becomes a slave but in return can enjoy the fruits of the labour in the leisure time.

Regarding the matter of education, it is not always an option to do what ones enjoy for a living no matter the acquired knowledge and the degree that confirms that. Some work is more valued than other. The market, we, decide that by our selective spending. One can become expert in the ancient history and end up working at Starbucks just because there is no need for their knowledge.

"I'm sure there are more productive or fulfilling things for people to be doing..."

I love the irony that they work in "Fufillment Centers".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com