Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

I understand the economics. But that doesn't answer my question: why does that rule out the possibility of taking advantage? How do you get from point A to point B?

There is an implicit assumption in your thinking that I'm trying to tease out.

View on HN

A contract is not a zero-sum game. The expected outcome of a contract is that both parties take advantage of each other and they both win.

That's a bizarre definition of "take advantage."

Then I assume you mean that one party is better off and the other party is worse off (taken advantage of). Sure, that can happen. But in the case of Amazon, the workers are better off or they wouldn't work there.

No, "taken advantage of" does not require one party to be made worse off. That is not the way the phrase is ordinarily used in the English language.

Sure it is. If I am taken advantage of, I am not better off for it.

You could be "better off", but still have been screwed out of being "even more better off". That's still being taken advantage of. Consider the legendary story about how Steve Jobs screwed the Woz.

Either definition works. You can take advantage of (exploit) someone at their expense, or your can take advantage of (leverage) their capabilities to mutual gain.

Frank took advantage of Amazon's 2-day shipping to do his last-minute Christmas shopping

Yes, but when someone says "Bob took advantage of Amanda" they likely do not meant Bob leveraged Amanda's capabilities to mutual gain.

htf is right as well.

The only assumption is that people will make the decision that is in their best interest. Amazon can only attract workers if it is the best option those workers have.

It is in their best interest. It also sucks.

You have a nice life. Someone comes up to you and holds a gun to your head. You are now about to die. They say "I won't shoot you if you give me all your money".

Suddenly, giving away all your money is in your best interest. Therefore it's voluntary, and by your argument, fair and reasonable and nobody is being taken advantage of because it's all by choice and in best interests. Right?

That is incorrect. By holding a gun, that person has initiated force against you. Initiation of force is a proactive action that requires volition on part of the perpetrator.

Amazon is not initiating force against anyone. If they provide higher than market wages for the workers, they will be violating the rights of their shareholders who will lose money and will be worse off due to the deal. In an industry with as tight margins as Amazon, it can result in flight of capital, loss of shareholder value and layoffs.

comments I haven't verified state that the people had a welfare state income keeping them alive, and that by merely extending an offer of work - at any salary - Amazon causes that to be revoked.

This isn't literally "initiating force" but if it is true then it is very similar in effect to the mugging scenario, and having the mugger use unseen but still present power to "make an offer you can't refuse" is still not a fair and ethical way to egg people to voluntarily enter into contracts.

You're both assuming that offering someone the best option they have rules out the conclusion that you're taking advantage of that person. But that does not necessarily follow.

Then yes, everyone is taking advantage of everyone. My cell phone provider is taking advantage of me because they make profit off of me. I'm taking advantage of them because they spent $1,000,000,000 building the infrastructure so I can use that cell phone. Apple is taking advantage of me by making a profit off of their cell phone. I am taking advantage of Apple by using that phone which they put millions of dollars of research into and shipped to my door.

So we both gain an advantage.

Jack gets a job with Amazon - he is able to afford a color TV and internet at home. Amazon hires Jack - they get their orders shipped to homes on time for Christmas.

Everyone is getting an advantage in all of these situations. No one would ever make an agreement that doesn't provide an advantage.

I assume you're asserting there is a power difference between Amazon and Jack that makes Amazon get more advantage from Jack. This may be true. Amazon, however, has a power difference with customers who ultimately decide whether the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure they are building is worth it or whether competitors will win.

Is it wrong if I decide to not buy from Amazon? Am I taking advantage of them by buying if their product is $10 but not buying if their product is $12?

"Taking advantage" does not mean "getting an economic benefit out of a transaction with someone." It's a moral judgment, defined in terms of conformance with social norms and expectations.

You forget that in Germany, unemployment insurance requires you to not bypass any offers (and you're required to seek work as well).

By "choosing" not to be employed by Amazon, if that's offered to the worker and happens to be their only choice, they "choose" to lose unemployment benefits.

Sounds like a faustian bargain.

Well, if some offer is not good enough, Germany is welcome to pass stricter minimum wage laws, so that the 'minimum viable job' would pay more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com