Hacker News Reader

Comment by tenpies | Hacker News Reader

It's because one of Amazon's products is for the government: employing a huge number of people with no education or credentials, in a job that pays above minimum wage.

In the Earnings Call in July of this year, they said they now employe 950,000 warehouse workers. They're probably over the 1 MM mark right now due to the holidays. Yes, there are plenty of people working there that are overqualified, but that is the beauty of what Amazon is doing. Their onboarding and recruiting for this is incredibly smooth, fast, and will give virtually everyone a chance. And it pays above minimum wage. There's not many places that provide that sort of service in the United States.

View on HN

They apparently have a huge turnover rate which is why they invest in a “smooth” onboarding.

> According to data analysed by the Times, Amazon was losing “about 3% of its hourly associates each week”, translating to an annual employee turnover of roughly 150% per year.

They already re-employ people who had previously left. Eventually they’ll run out of people willing to take the jobs if they just focus on on-boarding efficiency rather than working conditions people don’t hate.

Much of that turnover is the choice of the employee. They aren’t looking to build a long career in these instances. They’re looking for extra money or filler while between jobs.

I know guys that driver Uber/Lyft and do delivery and work at Amazon occasionally for extra money. So long as you remain in good standing they will hire you back quickly with the mutual understanding you’re just doing a quick thing.

Retail, as an employment sector, exists with or without amazon/walmart... and generally also employs low income people. Calling that a service is a bit much.

If anything,a more efficient company hires fewer workers than less efficient ones. And Amazon is known to be very efficient.

Sure, and from here on out complexity and alternative might have beens make it unresolveable.

That said, the idea that countries/government perpetually need companies to invest and "make jobs" is ridiculous rhetoric. It describes China in the 80s, or Russia in the 90s.

You lost me at how it describes Russia in the 90s, since I've been there at the time. Can you elaborate, please?

Russia was courting investors to invest as a way of mitigating unemployment. I don't think it quite worked out this way, but that was the idea.

Saying Amazon employs 1M American citizens has more impact than saying 1M people work in retail.

“ Yes, there are plenty of people working there that are overqualified, but that is the beauty of what Amazon is doing.”

It’s a feature not a bug to have overqualified people working in warehouses because the economy is trash?

> because the economy is trash?

But the economy isn't trash - unemployment has plummeted and is now back to 2018 levels, which were already historic lows. Income is up. It's an employee's market.

Then why are over qualified people working in warehouses?

Clearly there are two economies, one reported one where everything is great and the other one where overqualified people work in warehouses?

We'd have to ask them why they choose to work at Amazon over any other number of employers throwing themselves at applicants, I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com