Amazon fears it will run out of workers in the US due to very high churn

[ponyo]

I remember when almost everyone said Amazon was money losing company and would never make money. The more they sold, the money they would lose. Or so I was told. I was a fool for blindly believing them without doing my own research. It’s my own fault for being lazy.

Now everyone in this thread is telling me Amazon makes too much money and should pay their workers more and treat them better.

Or maybe we should let the free market decide. No one is forcing these people to work for Amazon evidence by their high turnover. As long as Amazon is not doing anything illegal, let them run their company how they think is best run. Most of you have never even operated lemonade stand. Market will force them to act if needed.

BTW, Amazon is advertising $20 an hour starting pay with $1k signing bonus in GA. I hear the ad all the time on the radio.

 

[zinfamous]

Because it's complex, silly. I actually have skills in the process of implementing, setting up, configuring, and selling the software that is used for replacing the bean counters you speak of. The difference is, I'm a highly skilled bean counter that can explain the legalities and have the technical skills for IT implementations of it.

horseshit

 

[zinfamous]

I remember when almost everyone said Amazon was money losing company and would never make money. The more they sold, the money they would lose. Or so I was told. I was a fool for blindly believing them without doing my own research. It’s my own fault for being lazy.

Now everyone in this thread is telling me Amazon makes too much money and should pay their workers more and treat them better.

Or maybe we should let the free market decide. No one is forcing these people to work for Amazon evidence by their high turnover. As long as Amazon is not doing anything illegal, let them run their company how they think is best run. Most of you have never even operated lemonade stand. Market will force them to act if needed.

BTW, Amazon is advertising $20 an hour starting pay with $1k signing bonus in GA. I hear the ad all the time on the radio.

eh, they only make money because of AWS. They are still in the red on their warehouse junk-selling business, and everything that isn't AWS. All of those criticisms were levied at a company at a time when it was years from anyone thinking that something like AWS would be a thing.

 

[pcgeek11]

Barefoot & pregnant right? Ya' know, where Righteys think all wimminfolk belong.

I never claimed anything of the sort. WE decided when we got married we would raise our family that way.

We went without if we couldn't afford things and saved up. Today everybody has to have what they want now. That is one of the Many Reasons they cannot wait to save for it. Fastest internet, Cable streaming services, 1000 dollar cell phones and a new car every few years.

Oh and get off my lawn!

 

[K1052]

eh, they only make money because of AWS. They are still in the red on their warehouse junk-selling business, and everything that isn't AWS. All of those criticisms were levied at a company at a time when it was years from anyone thinking that something like AWS would be a thing.

Right. Most people only know it as a retailer when AWS is busy hosting like half the internet.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well no more so than the Republicans are ALL for ... X Y Z as portrayed so often here.

I agree.

Great then we just need to pay for it.

I'm sure the wealthiest nation in the world can come up with a plan.

The difference between your generalization and generalizing about the GOP is that the Dems platforms encompass many different ideas, whereas the GOP's really doesn't. That's why the GOP is trying their damnedest to restrict voting. They know their platform isn't popular, just not gonna change it.

 

[ponyo]

eh, they only make money because of AWS. They are still in the red on their warehouse junk-selling business, and everything that isn't AWS. All of those criticisms were levied at a company at a time when it was years from anyone thinking that something like AWS would be a thing.

No, they were making money on retailing side as well. Just not high margin, high profit like AWS. Amazon was cash flow positive most years. But instead of reporting profit and paying taxes, Bezos elected to invest and grow the company by building their warehouse and logistics business. Bezos only cared about maximum growth over profit because it was race against time. It was land grab strategy. AWS came later and what really propelled Amazon profit and advanced the stock price.

The reason this lesson sticks with me was because I heard the same story being repeated about Tesla. About how Tesla makes no money and loses more money for every car they make and sell. And at first, like a dummy, I believed them as well. Until I remembered my lesson from Amazon. So I researched Tesla and found that wasn't true and Tesla was also cashflow positive just like Amazon was in early years. That's when everything clicked for me. Like Bezos, Musk was plowing all the money into faster growth and expansion. It was land grab strategy with Tesla as well. So I went back and compared Amazon and Tesla growth rates when they were similar size company and similar time on the market. I found Tesla was growing much faster than Amazon ever did under similar circumstances. And just like Amazon goal was to prioritize growth over profit, it's the same with Tesla.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Never claimed otherwise...

Then why present the classic anecdote? We all hear about what that was like, but it's not what it is anymore, by design.

 

[ivwshane]

I remember when almost everyone said Amazon was money losing company and would never make money. The more they sold, the money they would lose. Or so I was told. I was a fool for blindly believing them without doing my own research. It’s my own fault for being lazy.

Now everyone in this thread is telling me Amazon makes too much money and should pay their workers more and treat them better.

Or maybe we should let the free market decide. No one is forcing these people to work for Amazon evidence by their high turnover. As long as Amazon is not doing anything illegal, let them run their company how they think is best run. Most of you have never even operated lemonade stand. Market will force them to act if needed.

BTW, Amazon is advertising $20 an hour starting pay with $1k signing bonus in GA. I hear the ad all the time on the radio.

The free market is deciding you stupid fuck! What the hell do you think is going on?

 

[ivwshane]

I never claimed anything of the sort. WE decided when we got married we would raise our family that way.

We went without if we couldn't afford things and saved up. Today everybody has to have what they want now. That is one of the Many Reasons they cannot wait to save for it. Fastest internet, Cable streaming services, 1000 dollar cell phones and a new car every few years.

Oh and get off my lawn!

I love how you think you know everyone’s situation. If you had to walk a mile anyone else’s shoes you’d fall over before taking one step because you are clueless.

 

[ponyo]

The free market is deciding you stupid fuck! What the hell do you think is going on?

Take a deep breath. Calm down. Feel better?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

To my understanding Amazon follows that old Microsoft policy of wanting a certain churn level in various positions.
From Managing people a zero churn rate for an employer that has lots of people is a sign something is wrong. Nobody is being developed or promoted and nobody is being held accountable for poor decisions. This isn’t healthy.
Problem is humans are lazy many here won’t agree with me but it is true we all seek the fastest, most easy solution to a problem. If your boss says “you don’t hire enough new employees conspired to your peers and established goals” we will seek the easiest solutions:
Hire new workers who will leave soon like the graduate college in 8 months or less
Hire people who plan on moving
Hire people who typically don’t stay at jobs
Doing the above will get you to your churn goal quickly and easily.
The right way to do it is to develop your team so some or many progress to more important stuff or do far more observations and intervene in poor performance, correct and review progress. Basically hold people accountable to goals. This requires work like daily meetings, reviewing progress and spending a percentage of your time with everyone. Humans don’t like the awkwardness of this type of meeting.

Summary: I don’t think amazon is doing something so wrong, I do think machine made goals are inhumane to apply to everything and everyone but they certainly have a place and serve an important role.
My bet is amazon will modify some goals to correct the employee churn numbers and hiring managers abilities.

 

[DarthKyrie]

YOU get a space ship, and YOU get a space ship, and YOU get a space ship. Oprah gave everyone a car, so Bezos can at the least hand out space ships.

It's not so much the incredible massive huge wealth disparity between the CEO vs the slave labor that ticks me off, it is what these incredibly super wealthy people spend their money on.... Or should we say "blow" their money on. They buy mansions where a really big house would suffice, and collecting expensive automobiles, and spending millions on a single piece of art, and now on spaceships.

You know..... when it gets THIS BAD, maybe socialism isn't that bad of an idea after all? But I know exactly what people like Bezos are waiting for, they are waiting for robotic technology to completely take over to the point where the robots can be the slave labor and the human worker can go F themselves.

With the money Amazon alone makes, all of their employees SHOULD HAVE 100% paid healthcare (with no co-pays), and a life long pension plan upon retirement, and a decent generous wage where only the employee need work and the spouse can (if desired) stay at home raising the kids. You know.... just like it was during the 1950's. Every home built during the 50's was built with a one-car garage because only one car was needed. The car dad drove to work, while mom stayed home. And still, that family could afford to send the kids to college and take a yearly vacation. That was before the greed took over, before the unions were killed off, and the massive wealth disparity evolved, and.... when the republicans began screwing the middle class.

This is an off-topic post on my part: What did you do with the real shortage? This post is way too coherent and properly spaced to be the real sportage.

On topic: Amazon has to be one of the worst companies to work for with a churn rate that extreme.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Is it at all possible it's simply supply-and-demand?

When it was normal for wives to stay-at-home (thanks to cultural norms and, I guess, that the machinery for saving domestic labour - like microwaves and washing-machines - hadn't been invented yet) the available workforce outside the home would have been half what it now is. Thus its value would have been twice what it now is. That's relative to the fixed-costs of housing at least. For other costs one could presume the price of the goods would have gone down also, as the cost of the labour to produce them did, so the changes would have cancelled out. But not for land and hence housing. Women joining the paid labour force would halve the relative value of labour compared to land, no?

This of course assumes the country is a closed economy, and ignores the effect of globaiisation, so maybe it doesn't really work like that.

Washing machines where invented on 1920, and the microwave in 1947 (before the 50's) Those inventions had nothing to do with it, as they had those in the 50's.

Supply and demand did play a part, but not like you think.. The baby boomers caused an influx in population growth which in turn caused a demand in more workers in the 60's, as it was impossible to keep up on the supply side of the demand the influx in population brought for such supplies, which brought more women into the workforce, by choice, as they did not need to work to support their family, as their husbands income took care of all that. They also where in demand, so them joining the work force had no effect on wages decreasing. The problem is, in the late 60's is also when wage inequality and the wealth gap started to increase, which grew exponentially as time went on, specially when the wealthy income tax went from 91% down to 40% or less. Which took away an incentive to pay higher wages, caused wages to be suppressed more and more to the point that they didn't even keep up with inflation. Yet, as people where being paid less in comparison, and inflation continued to rise, The wealth gab grew larger and larger. In the 50's CEO's made 20X their lowest paid employee.. that is well over 500X now. It's almost like the inflation was tied to the profits that lined the wealthy's pockets since the workforce wasn't gaining anything on the wage front.

Addressing "the workforce in the 50's is half of what it is now". That is true if you look at just the workforce numbers. But you can't do that, because you have to take the increase in population into account. Once you do that, our workforce today is really only 10% larger than what it was in the 50's. IN the 50's there where 105 Million people in the work force (ages 16 and up) (population of around 158 Million). But there where only 43.5 Million jobs. Which means 1 job for every 2.41 people in the workforce. in 2020 before the pandemic, there where 253 Million people in the workforce (ages 16 and up) (population of around 330 Million), and 152.5 million jobs.. which means 1 job for every 1.65 people in the workforce. Which means that here was a higher demand for workers in 2020 (actually 2015 to 2020) than in the 50's, which means wages should reflect that by increasing.. but they really didn't.. wages have been stagnate for decades. Now, if you look at those numbers, it demonstrates how our unemployment numbers are "manipulated".. as you can't have a workforce that is twice the number of jobs and really have a low unemployment rate. But that's because of how they calculate it. They take the number of unemployed and divide it by the number in the workforce and multiply that by 100. But the employed can be full time, part time, or temporary employment.. meaning 1 of those 152.5 million jobs, can be filled by multiple part time workers or temporary workers, completely skewing reality of our actual unemployment rate. Which demonstrates yet, another reason people can't live on a single income, even though they are considered employed as they share that 1 job with other people working part time or temporary. At least that is my take on it..

 

[pmv]

Washing machines where invented on 1920, and the microwave in 1947 (before the 50's) Those inventions had nothing to do with it, as they had those in the 50's.

I'll get to the rest of it later, because I'm not really committed to my 'thesis', it's just a thought I've wondered about, and you might have a convincing alternative explanation. But this bit here I don't find exactly conclusive. When something was 'invented' has little to do with when it became widely available as a mass-market consumer product, and those dates you give are perfectly consistent with my suggested theory. It takes time for material changes to change behaviours. There were a large number of material inventions that gradually reduced the need for full-time labour to maintain the domestic sphere, over the course of the 20th century. Again, though, I'm not really wedded to this theory, it might not be the explanation for what's happened.

Addressing "the workforce in the 50's is half of what it is now". That is true if you look at just the workforce numbers. But you can't do that, because you have to take the increase in population into account. Once you do that, our workforce today is really only 10% larger than what it was in the 50's.

I don't really understand this part. I meant 'as a proportion of the population'. As in the '50s or before, most women didn't have paid employment outside the home, how can it be that the available workforce is now only 10% larger than then? By making paid employment the norm for women, has that not doubled the available workforce? If it's only gone up by 10%, where has the rest of it gone?

More students (due to a longer duration of education now required)? Earlier retirement? Or, very possibly, I am just underestimating the number of women who _did_ have paid employment, even in earlier eras? (Black and working-class women have always worked, as has been pointed out a few times to earlier generations of white feminists...but then maybe one could argue the effect of the devaluing of labour is only on the slightly-better-off classes, i.e middle-class white families?)

IN the 50's there where 105 Million people in the work force (ages 16 and up) (population of around 158 Million). But there where only 43.5 Million jobs. Which means 1 job for every 2.41 people in the workforce. in 2020 before the pandemic, there where 253 Million people in the workforce (ages 16 and up) (population of around 330 Million), and 152.5 million jobs.. which means 1 job for every 1.65 people in the workforce. Which means that here was a higher demand for workers in 2020 (actually 2015 to 2020) than in the 50's, which means wages should reflect that by increasing.. but they really didn't.. wages have been stagnate for decades. Now, if you look at those numbers, it demonstrates how our unemployment numbers are "manipulated".. as you can't have a workforce that is twice the number of jobs and really have a low unemployment rate. But that's because of how they calculate it. They take the number of unemployed and divide it by the number in the workforce and multiply that by 100. But the employed can be full time, part time, or temporary employment.. meaning 1 of those 152.5 million jobs, can be filled by multiple part time workers or temporary workers, completely skewing reality of our actual unemployment rate. Which demonstrates yet, another reason people can't live on a single income, even though they are considered employed as they share that 1 job with other people working part time or temporary. At least that is my take on it..

OK, you have actual figures here, which do seem to support your argument. But I'm puzzled by those figures. As you say, it does depend very much on how one defines a 'job'.

 

[blackangst1]

Hopefully our government can put aside their biases and address this crisis by crafting legislation that forces Americans to work for poverty wages.

Wait...I thought $15/hour was the gold standard for minimum wage? No?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

you are the exception which is far and few now days because majority of wages paid today to the majority of people won't substain it. Where in the 50's, it was opposite, where it was nearly unheard of having the wife work to survive.

I'm in my mid 30's, making above the 75th percentile. GF is on SSI, which affords us some secondary income (~$800/mo). It's pretty lean for us most times, though we run a tight ship so we've still got some room for fun stuff. I also make creative use of cheap stuff. It'd be basically impossible to live where I am if I made even $500 less/mo.

 

[shortylickens]

I think somebody mentioned taxes and I'd like to point out that if we grabbed Bezos and bled him completely dry we would not even make a scratch in our national debt. Thats how bad things are right now.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Wait...I thought $15/hour was the gold standard for minimum wage? No?

Check your sarcasm meter

 

[blackangst1]

Check your sarcasm meter

It was low batt. Thanks.

 

[ElFenix]

HEB grocery has a banner at the front of the store stating that they're paying $17.50/hr for warehouse order selectors ("PLUS PREMIUMS!" whatever that means), and could earn $500 "awards". people willing to work in warehouses about to get bid up.

 

[vi edit]

I think somebody mentioned taxes and I'd like to point out that if we grabbed Bezos and bled him completely dry we would not even make a scratch in our national debt. Thats how bad things are right now.

I don't think any of us are talking about the debt. And that's not really the relevant problem statement. The problem is putting profits back into shareholders/execs and not employees.

 

[pcgeek11]

Then why present the classic anecdote? We all hear about what that was like, but it's not what it is anymore, by design.

I disagree that it cannot be like that now. I know many families that are one earner households. Of course they aren't packing 1000 dollar cell phones and such, but they are doing just fine.

 

[pcgeek11]

I love how you think you know everyone’s situation. If you had to walk a mile anyone else’s shoes you’d fall over before taking one step because you are clueless.

Speaking of clueless. Hi!

 

[ivwshane]

Speaking of clueless. Hi!

I’m glad you recognize you are clueless.